a«JWW¥WWWWV¥W¥¥WWo¥V¥Wo^ 


>Jik^iMMMMAiiMMMMkS{MMMMM 


/-^^ 


^  iGor^ 


<^^^^ 

S-^^ 


^^S^5;^S^5C.    ^ 


ir^r^'^?^'  erf.  ^~"^' 


LC:-^^>C 

QCc3 

__<^_C<  ;^'- 

c:^^"'^^ 

^■^^ 

^:^  ;<s^-  <-   <r^-r 


._   i-s^^^^,^ 


r_,,|ijpii  gji    i,,,|ii,j3ftii^M|i..jiirL 


<«P«F'1iMP!S!'*wMM>!9^ 


<s<.^ 


'cx  c:<: 

C'CC     ' 


C^^!^ 


«^    C€> 


Cj^3^i^<<-SSL  CJ^:!, 


'T*^^jS 


^^€X^<^-cc  ^o;^f^^  ^&'<^^^^ 


'^<k:  •^^^ " '' " 


'7:C'^:^< 


V^i^ssS 


#< 


<^v  <:^.  <i_ .   .  Vcs^'^C^-S^ 


c^L3.^: 


RBPOETS  TO  HON.  GEORGE  STOMMAN, 

GOVERNOR  OF  CALIFORNIA, 


CERTAIN    CLAIMS 


STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 


AGAINST  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


NOVEMBER  1,  1878,  TO  NOVEMBER  1,  1886. 


By 

Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  State  of  California. 


SACRAMENTO: 

STATE    OFFICE, JAMES   J.   AYERS,    SUPT.    STATE    PRINTING. 

1886. 


t.^^ 


Washington,  D.  C,  November  1,  1886. 

To  his  Excellency,  Hon.  George  Stoneman,  Governor  of  California : 

Sir:  In  conformity  with  Section  No.  332,  Political  Code  of  the  State  of 
California,  I  beg  leave  respectfully  to  now  submit  to  you  the  following 
report  on  the  several  matters  intrusted  to  my  care,  under  my  "  contracts 
with  the  State  of  California  for  the  collection  of  California  State  claims 
against  the  United  States,"  comprising  a  period  from  November  1,  1878,  to 
November  1,  1886. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  MULLAN, 

State  Agent  and  Counsel  for  California. 


ivil!26753 


REPORT 


Washington,  D.  C,  November  1,  1886. 

Hon.  George  Stoneman,  Governor  of  California: 

Dear  Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  you  a  report  upon  the  several 
claims  of  the  State  of  California  against  the  United  States,  for  which  I  have 
been  heretofore  appointed  agent  and  counsel,  and  for  all  of  which  I  have 
been  so  acting  for  a  period  covering  the  eight  years  last  past,  to  wit:  from 
November  1,  1878,  to  November  1,  1886. 

I  have  from  time  to  time  during  said  period  made  to  you  and  to  your 
predecessor,  and  to  the  present  State  Surveyor-General  and  Adjutant-Gen- 
eral of  the  State  of  California,  and  to  their  predecessors  in  office,  sundry 
detailed  reports  of  my  acts  in  all  these  premises,  and  have  addressed  you 
and  them  from  time  to  time  such  proper  communications  thereon  as 
enabled  you  and  them  to  keep  au  courant  with  all  proceedings  had  therein 
as  the  same  transpired.  Yet,  in  order,  at  the  termination  of  your  adminis- 
tration as  Governor  of  the  State  of  California,  that  you  may  have  full  infor- 
mation on  all  these  matters,  and  for  the  purpose  of  your  laying  the  same 
before  the  Legislature  at  its  next  session,  and  in  view  of  the  importance  to 
the  people  of  California  of  sundry  of  these  several  claims  and  of  many  cir- 
cumstances connected  therewith,  and  especially  for  the  purpose  of  having 
an  authentic  record  of  the  history  of  all  thereof  for  future  reference,  in  so 
far  as  my  agency  in  any  of  these  premises  has  been  or  may  be  hereafter 
concerned,  I  deem  it  proper  to  now  submit  you  a  general  summary,  cover- 
ing each  of  said  claims  as  represented  by  me  during  the  eight  years  last 
past. 

These  several  claims  by  me  represented,  as  agent  and  counsel  for  the 
State  of  California,  are  as  follows,  to  wit: 

First — The  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of  the 
public  lands  in  California  made  by  the  United  States  subsequent  to  the 
date  of  her  admission  into  the  Union — September  9,  1850 — and  not  here- 
tofore paid  to  the  State  of  California  by  the  United  States. 

Second — The  refunding  by  the  United  States  to  California  her  quota  of 
the  direct  tax  levied  by  the  United  States  under  the  Act  of  Congress 
approved  August  5,  1861,  and  not  heretofore  reimbursed  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia by  the  United  States. 

Third — The  refunding  by  the  United  States  to  California  the  moneys 
heretofore  by  her  expended  on  account  of  the  Modoc  Indian  war,  in  north 
California,  in  1872  and  1873,  and  not  heretofore  reimbursed  the  State  of 
California  by  the  United  States. 

Fourth — The  refunding  by  the  United  States  to  California  the  moneys 
heretofore  by  her  expended  on  account  of  Indian  (other  than  Modoc)  hos- 
tilities therein,  and  upon  the  borders  thereof,  between  September  9,  1850, 
and  June  27,  1882,  and  not  heretofore  reimbursed  the  State  of  California 
by  the  United  States. 


"  '   "  '    '      """    '  '  6 

Fifth — The  refunding  by  the  United  States  to  the  State  of  California  the 
moneys  heretofore  by  her  expended  on  account  of  the  war  of  rebelHon,  and 
not  heretofore  reimbursed  the  State  of  California  by  the  United  States. 

Sixth — The  refunding  by  the  United  States  to  the  State  of  California  the 
moneys  by  her  heretofore  paid  as  interest  on  the  principal  borrowed  by  her 
on  account  of  the  two  foregoing  items,  and  not  heretofore  reimbursed  the 
State  of  California  by  the  United  States. 

Seventh — The  refunding  by  the  United  States  to  the  State  of  California 
the  moneys  by  her  heretofore  paid  the  United  States  as  fees  upon  those 
particular  selections  and  locations  of  lands  under  the  several  land  grants 
made  by  Congress  to  California,  which  have  been  declared  invalid  by  the 
United  States,  not  allowed,  and  which  were  finally  canceled  by  the  United 
States,  wherever  said  fees  have  not  been  heretofore  reimbursed  the  State 
of  California  by  the  United  States;  and,  also, 

The  securing  for  the  State  of  California  an  indemnity  in  either  lands  or 
money  of  so  much  of  its  Swamp  Land  Grant,  made  to  her  in  the  Act  of 
Congress  approved  September  28,  1850,  and  confirmed  to  her  in  the  Act  of 
July  23,  1866,  as  have  heretofore  not  inured  to  the  benefit  of  said  State,  but 
which  lands  have  in  sundry  instances  been  heretofore  sold,  or  been  other- 
wise disposed  of  by  the  United  States,  and  without  any  benefit  accruing 
therefrom  to  the  State  of  California. 


No.  1.    THE  FIVE  PER  CENT  CLAIM. 

During  a  law  practice  in  California,  extending  over  a  period  of  several 
years,  devoted  chiefly  to  land  matters  arising  therein,  it  came  to  my  knowl- 
edge that  the  State  of  California  had  never  received  from  the  United  States, 
nor  had  ever  been  granted  by  Congress,  any  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds 
of  the  cash  sales  of  the  public  lands  therein  made  by  the  United  States; 
and  that  while  California  had  no  legal  claim  against  the  United  States 
therefor,  yet  in  view  of  the  fact  that  a  similar  grant  had  been  made  by 
Congress,  to  all  the  other  public  land  States  of  the  Union,  that  an  equity 
therein  at  least  would  seem  to  exist  in  behalf  of  California,  which,  if  prop- 
erly represented  and  urged  at  the  proper  times  and  places,  by  a  competent 
party  conversant  with  the  subject-matter,  might  eventuate  in  finally  secur- 
ing a  similar  grant  to  California. 

Therefore,  in  the  year  1878, 1  brought  this  matter  to  the  special  attention 
of  the  State  authorities  of  the  State  of  California,  to  wit:  to  her  Governor, 
Honorable  William  Irwin,  and  to  her  State  Surveyor-General,  Honorable 
William  Minis,  and  made  fully  known  to  them  all  the  circumstances  and 
facts  connected  therewith  within  my  knowledge,  believing  then  and  know- 
ing now  that  no  systematic  effort  had  ever  been  made,  'prior  to  that  time, 
to  secure  California  the  benefits  of  this  grant. 

It  is  true  the  Legislature  of  California,  upon  the  recommendation  of 
Hon.  John  B.  Weller,  Governor  of  California,  on  March  4,  1858,  and  in 
approval  of  the  urgent  and  intelligent  presentation  to  him  of  the  valid 
reasons  therefor  by  Hon.  Andrew  J.  Moulder,  the  Superintendent  of  Public 
Instruction,  under  date  of  March  4,  1858  (see  Assembly  Journal,  ninth 
session,  pages  302  et  sequiter  and  314),  did,  on  March  11, 1858,  memorialize 
Congress  to  make  her  such  a  grant;  but  the  matter,  so  far  as  I  know,  began 
and  ended  in  this  one  step.  Certainly,  in  1878,  a  period  of  twenty  years 
had  been  allowed  to  come  and  go,  and  during  which  time  no  beneficial 
results  had  flowed  to  her  therefrom. 


Even  in  that  single  effort  the  Legislature  of  California  admitted  that 
Congress  had  changed,  by  departing  from  its  policy,  in  the  case  of  California 
in  these  premises — an  admission  which,  to  a  very  great  extent,  gave  away 
the  very  case  which  the  memorial  sought  to  secure;  but,  be  that  as  it  may, 
one  thing  is  most  sure,  that  this  admission,  such  as  it  was,  could  certainly 
not  strengthen  her  position  as  a  petitioner  after  a  long  lapse  of  years  sub- 
sequent to  the  date  of  her  admission  into  the  Union. 

A  copy  of  this  memorial  is  hereto  attached,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  1, 
and  made  a  part  hereof. 

After  having  maturely  considered  the  subject-matter  in  all  its  bearings, 
and  all  that  it  might  involve,  I  was  willing  to  visit  Washington  and  there 
undertake,  at  my  own  expense,  the  presentation  of  this  equitable  claim  of 
California  before  the  proper  United  States  tribunals,  provided  I  were  so 
authorized.  The  subject-matter  having  been  duly  considered  by  the  State 
Surveyor-General  and  ex  officio  Register  of  State  Lands,  Hon.  William 
Minis,  the  head  of  that  branch  of  the  State  Government  more  directly  than 
any  other  charged  by  law  with  the  superintendence -of  the  public  interests 
in  all  matters  relating  to  lands  and  land  sales  in  California — that  officer, 
on  November  1,  1878,  commissioned  me  as  Agent  and  Attorney  for  the 
State  of  California  in  these  premises,  a  copy  of  which  commission  is  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  2. 

My  said  appointment  and  commission  were  made  subject  to  the  action 
of  the  Legislature,  for  the  purpose  of  ratifying  and  validating  the  appoint- 
ment so  by  him  made,  and  of  fixing  the  compensation  which  I  should 
receive,  and  which  latter  was  to  be  entirely  contingent  upon  success,  to  wit: 

That  I  was  to  get  nothing  if  the  State  got  nothing;  and  per  contra,  if  the 
State's  claim  should  be  recognized,  then  I  was  to  receive  such  compensation 
as  the  Legislature  might  thereafter  fix  and  declare  whenever  it  should  take 
np,  consider,  and  act  thereon. 

Armed  with  this  authority,  I  proceeded  from  California  to  Washington 
City  in  the  month  of  November,  1878,  at  my  own  expense. 

Immediately  upon  my  arrival  in  Washington,  for  the  purpose  of  testing 
the  sense  of  the  General  Land  Office  as  to  whether  there  was  sufficient 
authority  of  law  by  which  that  office  could  then  recognize  this  claim  of  the 
State  of  California,  I,  on  the  twentieth  of  November,  1878,  submitted  to 
the  honorable  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  my  letter  of  appoint- 
ment, together  with  a  communication,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  appended 
and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  3. 

To  this  letter  the  honorable  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office 
replied  in  a  communication  dated  November  28,  1878,  a  copy  of  which  is 
hereto  appended  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  4. 

Having  thus  exhausted  all  executive  remedy  in  the  premises,  I  thereupon 
determined  to  address  myself  next  to  Congress,  in  order  to  secure  that 
legislation  without  which  the  honorable  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office  had  informed  me  he  could  not  state  an  account  to  the  Treasury 
Department  in  favor  of  the  State  of  California;  and  deeming  it  my  duty  in 
these  premises  (with  but  few  exceptions)  then  and  now  to  always  proceed 
through  the  members  of  the  California  delegation  in  Congress,  in  either  the 
Senate  or  House,  and  for  this  reason,  I  thereupon  addressed  a  letter  on 
this  subject  to  the  Hon.  J.  K.  Luttrell,  then  in  Congress  from  Cahfornia, 
copy  of  which  letter  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibit  No.  5. 

To  this  letter  Mr.  Luttrell  replied  in  a  communication,  a  copy  .of  which 
is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  6. 

Not  being  satisfied  with  this  view  of  the  case  as  expressed  by  Mr.  Luttrell, 


8 

I  then,  for  reasons  appearing  to  me  good  and  sufficient,  next  brought  the 
matter  to  the  attention  of  Hon.  P.  D.  Wigginton,  then  also  in  Congress 
from  Cahfornia,.  who,  at  my  request,  on  January  20, 1879,  introduced  in  the 
House  a  bill,  H.  R.  No.  6081,  third  session.  Forty-fifth  Congress,  to  make 
this  grant  to  California,  and  copy  of  which  bill  is  hereto  attached  and  made 
a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  7. 

While  I  was  not  sanguine  in  securing  any  final  result  on  this  bill  then, 
so  near  the  end  of  the  third  and  last  session  of  the  Forty-fifth  Congress, 
yet  I  desired  to  get  the  matter  on  record  and  before  Congress  at  the  very 
earliest  date  possible,  and  due  diligence  on  my  part  seemed  to  me  to  make 
this  a  matter  of  duty  which  I  owed  the  trust  that  I  had  undertaken  to 
execute. 

This  bill,  it  will  be  perceived,  proposed  to  dedicate  said  proceeds  to  the 
"  making  or  improving  public  roads,  constructing  drainage  and  irrigating 
ditches  and  canals,  to  effect  a  general  system  for  irrigating  the  agricultural 
lands  in  said  State,  and  in  the  mode  and  manner  as  the  Legistature  of  said 
State  may  establish  ai;d  direct." 

During  this  third  session  of  the  Forty-fifth  Congress,  the  Hon.  George 
W.  Julian  was  Chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  and 
in  whom  I  did  not  think  I  had  found  any  friend  of  this  measure;  on  the 
contrary,  it  seemed  to  me  that  he,  with  other  members  of  that  committee, 
seemed  to  labor  under  the  impression  that  the  State  of  California  had  no 
claim  for  this  grant  that  was  valid  in  either  law  or  equity,  and  because  she 
had  accepted  an  admission  into  the  Union  without  such  grant  or  condition,, 
and  she  had  allowed  twenty-eight  years  to  pass  without  even  urging  this 
claim,  which  at  best  was  questionable,  and  not  well  founded;  and  that  the 
most  that  California  could  expect  was,  that  should  Congress  make  her  any 
such  grant,  the  same  should  take  effect  only  from  the  date  of  its  passage; 
which  thereby,  as  I  saw,  would  destroy  more  than  one  half  of  the  value  of 
this  claim.  I  therefore  feared  to  urge  final  action  on  this  bill  during  the 
Forty-fifth  Congress,  fearing  either  an  adverse  report  or  one  such  as  would 
limit  the  grant,-  by  making  it  take  effect  from  and  at  the  date  of  the  passage 
of  the  Act,  and  if  action  by  Congress  on  such  report  should  be  delayed,  as- 
it  would  likely  be,  then  the  effect  would  inevitably  be  to  render  this  grant 
barren  of  those  substantial  benefits  for  which  I  pleaded,  to  wit: 

That  this  grant,  when  made,  should  relate  back  to  the  date  of  the  admission 
of  the  State  of  California  into  the  Union,  or  at  least  to  the  earliest  date  ivhen 
the  first  sales  of  public  lands  for  cash  in  California  had  taken  place,  and 
which  date  is  July  1,  1857. 

Finding  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  during  the  Forty-fifth  Congress 
little  disposed  to  take  any  favorable  action  on  this  measure,  I  deemed  it 
more  prudent  and  diplomatic  to  let  this  measure  rest  until  another  Congress 
should  meet,  so  that  the  Forty-fifth  Congress  adjourned  with  this  matter 
unacted  on  but  still  suh  judice  before  the  House  Committee  on  Public 
Lands,  and  as  hereinbefore  stated. 

In  view  of  the  situation  as  I  found  same  to  exist  in  Washington  during 
the  Forty-fifth  Congress,  and  in  order  that  the  Legislature  of  California 
might  express  itself  de  novo  on  this  subject,  and  believing  that  a  resolution 
to  Congress,  expressive  of  its  latest  views  and  wishes  therein,  might  have 
the  effect  to  stimulate  to  more  active  efforts  the  California  delegation  at 
least  in  behalf  of  this  measure,  I  prepared  a  resolution  having  for  its  object 
to  express  the  wishes  of  the  Legislature  of  California  on  this  subject,  and 
transmitted  the  same  to  Sacramento  on  the  twenty-ninth  November,  1880, 
to  the  Hon.  Grove  L.  Johnson,  then  a  State  Senator  in  the  California 
Legislature,  with  the  request  that  he  would  interest  himself  in  the  subject- 


matter,  and  to  introduce  in  the  State  Senate  my  said  resolution,  and 
informing  him,  among  other  things,  that  the  interest  of  the  State  of  CaH- 
fornia  in  this  measure,  would  aggregate  at  least  one  half  million  dollars; 
and  which  resolution  was  of  a  tenor  like  unto  the  bill  which  I  had  pre- 
pared and  had  Hon.  P.  D.  Wigginton  introduce,  and  as  hereinbefore 
described. 

This  resolution  passed  the  Senate  of  California  during  its  session  of 
1880-81,  but  it  failed  to  pass  the  Assembly  during  that  session,  when  the 
Legislature  adjourned  sine  die. 

The  Legislature  of  California  having  been  convened  in  session  in  1881, 
I  again  renewed  my  efforts  to  have  that  body  pass  a  similar  resolution  at 
this  session  on  this  same  subject,  and  with  this  object  in  view  I  again 
prepared  another  paper,  and  again  transmitted  it  to  Hon.  Grove  L.  John- 
son, still  a  State  Senator  at  Sacramento. 

Before  action  was  taken  by  the  Legislature  on  this  paper,  I  wrote  to  Mr. 
Johnson  to  change  the  form  of  said  paper,  which  was  then  only  a  resolu- 
tion, into  a  memorial,  which,  upon  reflection,  I  thought  it  ought  to  be;  and 
also  to  change  the  dedication  of  the  proceeds  of  this  claim  from  internal 
improvement  purposes,  which  had  been  my  original  intention,  to  educa- 
tional purposes,  which,  upon  reflection,  I  thought  might  subserve  larger 
interests. 

This  memorial  Hon.  Grove  L.  Johnson,  at  my  request,  introduced  in 
the  State  Senate  of  California,  where  it  passed  and  went  to  the  Assembly, 
where  it  also  passed  that  same  session,  and  became  the  Act  of  the  Legis- 
lature during  its  session  of  1881,  and  on  the  ninth  day  of  February,  1881, 
it  became  the  expressed  will  of  the  State  in  the  form  of  Senate  Concurrent 
Kesolution  No.  1,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
and  marked  Exhibit  No.  8, 

Certified  copies  of  this  Senate  Concurrent  Resolution,  which;  in  fact, 
and  in  the  body  thereof,  was  a  memorial  under  the  seal  of  the  State,  hav- 
ing been  sent  to  me  from  Sacramento,  I  presented  the  same  to  each  of  our 
Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  from  California,  and  also  to  the 
Public  Lands  Committee  in  both  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives, 
and  thereupon  I  prepared  two  bills  in  harmony  with  said  memorial,  one 
of  which,  to  wit.  Senate  Bill  No.  311,  was,  at  my  request,  introduced  in 
Congress  on  December  8,  1881,  by  Hon.  James  T.  Farley,  and  the  other, 
to  wit,  H.  R.  No.  61,  was,  also  at  my  request,  introduced  in  the  House  by 
Hon.  C.  P.  Berry,  on  December  13,  1881,  and  copies  of  which  bills  are 
hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibits  Nos.  9 
and  9^. 

Prior  to  this  date,  to  wit,  on  nineteenth  February,  1880,  during  the  sec- 
ond session  of  the  Forty-sixth  Congress,  the  Senate  having  under  consid- 
eration Senate  Bill  No.  19,  relating  to  the  general  subject  of  the  five  per 
cent  claims  (of  those  public  land  States  which  were  then  the  beneficiaries 
of  a  grant  thereof) ,  at  my  request  Senator  Farley  submitted  an  amend- 
ment thereto,  in  words  as  follows:  "And  provided  further,  that  the  State 
of  California  is  hereby  placed  upon  the  same  footing  as  regards  the  five 
per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  all  public  lands  in  the  said 
State  with  the  States  named  herein,  and  shall  be  entitled  to  all  benefits 
and  payments  to  which  they,  or  either  of  them,  are  entitled  under  this 
and  all  previous  Acts  of  Congress."  (See  page  1010  Congressional  Record, 
vol.  10,  second  session  Forty-sixth  Congress,  February  19,  1880.) 

This  bill  having  failed  to  pass  Congress,  like  as  in  the  Forty-fifth  Con- 
gress, we  were  unable  to  secure  any  action  for  our  California  five  per  cent 
claim  during  the  Forty-sixth  Congress — no  effort  having  been  made  in  the 


.10 

House  by  me  during  the  Forty-sixth  Congress,  as  I  feared  the  attitude  of 
that  committee,  and  especially  its  Chairman,  on  this  proposition. 

But,  as  before  stated,  I  renewed  my  efforts  before  the  next,  or  Forty- 
seventh  Congress,  and  before  which  we  had  submitted,  through  Senator 
Farley,  Senate  Bill  No.  311,  and,  through  Hon.  C.  P.  Berry,  House  Bill 
No.  61. 

A  house  had  assembled  in  the  Forty-seventh  Congress  that  changed 
the  political  character  and  personnel  of  the  House  Committee  on  Public 
Lands,  and  the  change  was  more  particularly  marked  by  the  substitution 
of  Governor  Pound,  of  Wisconsin,  for  its  Chairman,  vice  Hon.  George  W. 
Julian,  retired  from  Congress. 

To  support  these  two  bills  with  appropriate  facts  and  arguments,  I  com- 
piled from  various  records  and  archives  in  the  General  Land  Office  a 
series  of  eight  (8)  tables  of  statistics,  which  contained  a  full  history  of  all 
the  legislation,  from  the  earliest  sessions  of  Congress  to  dat^,  on  this  five 
per  cent  grant  to  the  several  States,  and  the  reasons  thereof,  and  the 
amounts  of  money  received  by  the  several  States  up  to  June  30,  1881, 
including  a  statement  of  the  cash  sales  of  public  lands  in  California,  made 
by  the  United  States  up  to  June  30,  1881. 

I  thereafter,  to  wit,  April  14, 1882,  submitted  these  tables  to  Hon.  N.  C. 
McFarland,  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  for  his  examina- 
tion and  approval,  and  that  officer  finding  them  to  be  correct,  he,  at  my 
request,  so  certified.  The  original  of  these  tables  I  filed  with  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Public  Lands  in  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  and  copies 
thereof  I  filed  with  the  House  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  and  appended 
other  copies  as  exhibits  to  an  argument  which  I  then  prepared  in  support 
of  said  Senate  Bill  No.  311  and  H.  R.  No.  61,  and  copies  of  all  of  which  I 
filed  with  the  Public  Land  Committee  in  Senate  and  House,  and  with  the 
members  of  the  California  delegation  then  in  Congress,  and  copies  of  which 
are  hereto  annexed  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  10. 

It  was  during  this  Forty-seventh  Congress,  to  wit,  on  December  5, 1881, 
that  Senator  Voorhees,  of  Indiana,  introduced  Senate  Bill  No.  67,  having 
for  its  object  to  authorize  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury,  when 
stating  the  accounts  for  this  five  per  cent  event  in  behalf  of  any  public 
land  State,  that  was  then  the  beneficiary  thereof,  to  so  state  the  same  that 
it  should  include  the  sales  made  by  or  for  Military  Bounty  Land  Warrants 
as  well  as  those  made  for  cash,  and  which  Bounty  Land  Warrants  sales 
had  always  theretofore  been  excluded  from  such  statements  when  any 
settlements  had  been  had  between  the  United  States  and  said  public  land 
States. 

A  House  Bill,  to  wit,  No.  4239,  for  this  purpose,  had  also  been  favorably 
reported  (in  House  Report  No.  70)  upon  in  the  Forty-fifth  Congress,  a  copy 
of  which  report  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibit  No.  11,  and  a  copy  of  said  Senate  Bill  No.  67  is  hereto  attached 
and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  11-|. 

Senator  Voorhees'  Senate  Bill  No.  67  in  the  Forty-seventh  Congress 
being  in  all  respects  similar  to  said  House  Bill  No.  4239  in  the  Forty-fifth 
Congress,  and  being  limited  as  it  was  exclusively  to  the  public  land  States 
of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Iowa, 
Nebraska,  Kansas,  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Florida, 
Oregon,  Nevada,  and  Colorado — California  being  the  only  public  land  State 
not  named  therein,  and,  therefore,  specially  excepted  from  its  provisions — at 
my  urgent  request,  while  the  same  was  under  consideration  in  the  Senate, 
Honorable  James  T.  Farley,  then  in  the  Senate,  who  theretofore  had  not 
been  in  favor  of  the  general  Military  Bounty  Land  Warrant  legislation  as 


11 

contained  in  said  Senate  Bill  No.  67  of  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  yet 
finally  agreed,  at  my  request,  to  submit  an  amendment  to  said  general 
Bill  No.  67,  so  as  to  include  California,  copy  of  which  amendment  is  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  12.  This  bill, 
amended  by  Senator  Farley  so  as  to  include  California,  passed  the  Senate 
on  the  nineteenth  day  of  May,  1882,  by  only  five  majority,  and  went  to 
the  House.  Copy  of  the  record  of  the  vote  had  thereon  is  hereto  appended 
and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  12-|. 

On  the  next  day,  upon  a  motion  by  Senator  Pugh  of  Alabama,  to  recon- 
sider the  vote  by  which  this  bill  passed  the  Senate,  it  was  recalled  from 
the  House,  and  the  vote  by  which*  it  had  passed  the  Senate  was  reconsid- 
ered and  it  was  thereafter  laid  upon  the  table  of  the  Senate,  where  it  ever 
remained  unacted  on  during  that  session. 

It  is  due  to  truth  to  report  that  Senator  Pugh  had.  antagonized  this  bill 
during  all  the  debates  had  thereon,  and  only  voted  with  the  ayes  in  order  to 
have  the  parliamentary  privilege  of  moving  its  reconsideration. 

When  Congress  reconvened  at  its  short  and  last  session,  the  friends  of 
the  measure  despairing  of  securing  in  so  short  a  time  any  favorable  con- 
gressional action  thereon,  failed  to  renew  their  further  efforts  in  regard 
thereto,  and  consequently  this  bill,  which  contained  our  California  five  per 
cent  measure  in  full  effect,  died  with  the  Forty-seventh  Congress.  I  now 
here  insert  a  chapter  of  the  history  of  this  legislation  within  my  personal 
knowledge,  in  order  to  record  a  fact  which  otherwise  might  never  be 
recorded. 

As  I  before  stated,  Senator  Farley  was  not  favorable  to  the  general  Mili- 
tary Bounty  Land  Warrant  construction  of  the  five  per  cent  grant  (a  fact 
which,  no  doubt,  Hon.  Newton  Booth,  then  also  a  Senator  from  California 
and  a  member  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  may  possibly 
recall,  as  Senator  Farley  is  now  dead). 

But  Senator  Farley's  vote  for  this  bill  was  then  thought  by  its  friends  to 
be  a  necessity  for  its  passage,  and  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Senate  was 
thought  to  be  quite  evenly  divided  then  on  this  general  proposition,  and 
because  the  sense  of  the  Senate  thereon  having  been  informally  taken  it 
was  found,  certainly  was  then  thought,  that  Senator  Farley's  vote  against 
this  general  bill  would  defeat  the  same. 

•  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  had  Senator  Farley  voted  against  this  gene- 
ral bill,  that  its  friends  would  have  thereafter  given  a  cold  shoulder  by 
giving  a  large  negative  vote  against  Senator  Farley's  separate  and  inde- 
pendent Senate  Bill  No.  811,  to  grant  California  this  five  per  cent  claim. 

Knowing  these  facts,  I  laid  them  all  before  Senator  Farley,  not  once,  but 
many  times ;  and  he  appreciating  the  importance  and  the  difficulty  and 
the  delicacy  of  his  position  on  this  general  measure,  finally  waived  all 
his  objections  to  this  general  bill,  in  order  that  his  action  thereon  should  not 
thereafter  be  used  as  an  argument  or  as  a  club  with  which  to  defeat  our 
California  five  per  cent  claim,  then  pending,  as  it  was,  before  the  Senate 
in  an  independent  and  separate  bill,  to  wit.  Senator  Farley's  Senate  Bill 
No.  311. 

The  friends  of  this  general  five  per  cent  Senate  Bill  No.  67,  which  had 
solely  for  its  object  to  include  all  sales  of  military  bounty  land  warrants, 
indulged  a  confident  belief  that  all  the  public^land  States,  then  the  benefi- 
ciaries of  this  grant,  had  a  claim  against  the  United  States  so  valid  at  law 
that  it  could  be  maintained  by  a  mandamus  proceeding,  if  initiated  in  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court  and  directed  specifically  against  the  Com- 
missioner of  the  General  Land  Office. 

In  view  of  such  belief,  two  of  the  States,  to  wit :  Iowa,  whose  interest  in 


12 

the  military  bounty  land  warrant  sales  made  in  that  State  aggregated 
$595,853  31,  by  its  State  agent,  Hon.  R.P.  Lowe  (ex-Governor  and  ex-Chief 
Justice  thereof ),  and  Illinois,  whose  interest  therein  aggregated  $881,006  60, 
by  its  State  agent,  Hon.  W.  W.  Wilshire  (ex-Representative  in  Congress  from 
Arkansas),  petitioned  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  for  writs  of  man- 
damus to  issue  from  it  against  said  honorable  Commissioner  of  the  General 
Land  Office,  compelling  him  to  state  an  account  that  would  include  all 
military  bounty  land  warrant  sales  made  in  said  two  States  by  the  United 
States.  These  two  gentlemen,  therefore,  as  State  agents  for  said  two  States 
respectively,  under  the  authority  of  their  respective  States,  representing  the 
same  interests  before  Congress  in  this  Senate  Bill  No.  67,  and  whose  compen- 
sation, like  mine,  was  to  be  contingent  on  success,  that  of  Governor  Lowe 
being  one  third  (-J)  of  such  sums  as  he  might  recover — and  whose  relation 
to  this  subject-matter  is  set  forth  in  a  paper,  copy  of  which  is  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  13 — prosecuted 
said  mandamus  proceedings. 

I  consulted  with  these  gentlemen  as  to  their  view  of  the  propriety  of  my 
intervening  in  behalf  of  the  State  of  California  in  this  proceeding  ;  but  it 
was  their  judgment  that  as  California  did  not  occupy  that  same  legal  rela- 
tion to  the  subject-matter,  such  as  Iowa  and  Illinois  did,  or  such  as  would 
strengthen  the  general  case  before  the  Court,  therefore  I  concluded  that  it 
would  be  unwise  to  intervene,  and  hence  limited  my  efforts  in  aiding  these 
two  State  agents  in  all  that  promised  a  successful  result.  The  State  of 
Alabama,  having  a  legal  status  in  the  matter,  intervened  through  her  own 
State  agent. 

This  judicial  proceeding  resulted  in  a  denial  of  the  writ  of  mandamus^ 
as  petitioned  for,  and  as  wdll  more  fully  appear  from  copy  of  the  order  of 
dismissal  of  said  petition,  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibit  No.  14. 

During  the  Forty-seventh  Congress  Senator  Farley's  said  Senate  Bill  No. 
311  was  favorably  reported  on  twentieth  February,  1882,  from  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Public  Lands  ;  and  Representative  Berry's  House  Bill  No. 
61  was  ordered  to  be  favorably  reported  to  the  House,  when  its  Public  Land 
Committee  should  be  called  for  reports,  but  which  call  was  never  made, 
so  that  the  Forty-seventh  Congress  adjourned  leaving  the  said  Senate  bill 
on  the  Senate  calendar  unacted  on,  though  favorably  reported ;  and  no 
further  action  was  had  on  this  measure  in  the  House  other  than  that 
hereinbefore  stated. 

In  view  thereof,  and  of  the  fact  that  the  proceedings  before  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  had  proven  equally  barren  of  beneficial  results,  I 
renewed  my  efforts  in  behalf  of  this  measure  before  the  Forty-eighth  Con- 
gress, when  I  again  prepared  two  (2)  bills,  one  of  which,  to  wit,  Senate 
Bill  No.  796,  was,  at  my  request,  introduced  on  December  18,  1883,  in  the 
Senate  by  the  late  Senator,  Hon.  John  F.  Miller ;  and  the  other,  to  wit,  H. 
R.  No.  Ill,  was,  at  my  request,  introduced  on  December  10,  1883,  in  the 
House  by  the  Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  and  copies  of  which  bills  are  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibits  Nos.  15  and  16. 
Senator  Miller  was  requested  by  me  to  take  charge  of  this  measure  in  the 
Senate  at  this  time,  in  consequence  of  the  fact  that  Senator  Farley,  who 
had  had  charge  thereof  during  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  was  absent 
from  Washington  sick. 

Prior  to  this  date  it  occurred  to  me  that,  as  I  had  been  diligently  at  work 
for  a  period  of  about  five  years  in  endeavoring  to  secure  favorable  action, 
in  season  and  out  of  season,  for  this  and  other  California  measures,  and  as 
yet  no  action  had  been  taken  by  the  Legislature  of  California  either  to 


18 

ratify  and  validate  my  appointments,  or  to  determine  and  fix  the  compen- 
sation that  I  should  receive  in  any  of  these  premises,  and  believing  that 
it  was  at  least  due  me  and  the  people  of  California  that  this  matter 
should  be  now  considered,  and  fully  acted  upon,  and  definitely  disposed 
of,  and  not  be  left  in  doubt  till  my  labors  should  be  finally  completed,  and, 
if  successful,  that  I  should  be  then  compelled  to  run  the  gauntlet  of  a 
hungry  lobby  sometimes  said  to  be  found  outside  the  doors  of  a  legislative 
body,  and  also  said  to  be  often  composed  of  blackmailers,  or  unscrupulous 
and  impecunious  dead  beats,  who  unfortunately,  it  is  said,  are  at  times 
successful  in  defeating  meritorious  measures,  and  who,  some  persons 
believe,  allow  action  on  private  claims  before  a  Legislature  only  on  their 
own  terms,  I  deemed  it  more  prudent,  rather  than  risk  being  placed  in  any 
such  condition,  to  have  this  matter  brought  fully  to  the  attention  of  the 
Legislature  for  its  consideration  and  final  action. 

This  subject-matter,  with  others  relating  to  me,  was,  therefore,  brought  to 
the  attention  of  the  Legislature  of  California  at  its  session  in  January,  1883, 
by  Hon.  George  C.  Perkins,  Governor  of  California,  in  his  concluding  mes- 
sage to  the  Legislature,  and  also  by  the  State  Surveyor-General,  Hon.  James 
W.  Shanklin,  in  his  final  annual  report  to  Governor  Perkins,  and  which 
references  of  said  officials  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibits  Nos.  19  and  20.  The  ■  Legislature  of  California  having 
maturely  considered  the  entire  subject-matter  in  its  appropriate  committees 
of  each  of  its  respective  Houses,  and  also  by  each  of  its  respective  bodies 
as  a  whole,  finally  passed  a  resolution  on  the  third  day  of  March,  1883, 
ratifying  and  confirming,  among  other  appointments,  the  one  so  conferred 
upon  me  by  State  Surveyor-General,  Hon.  William  Minis,  and  did  at  the 
same  time  determine  upon  and  fix  in  a  contract,  the  exact  compensation  I 
should  receive  in  these  premises,  copy  of  which  action  of  the  Legislature  is 
hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  21. 

My  appointment  so  theretofore  made,  having  been  thus  ratified  and  con- 
firmed on  March  3,  1883,  by  the  highest  power  known  to  the  State,  and 
my  compensation  in  the  premises  having  been  thereby  fixed  in  a  legislative 
contract,  I  proceeded  with  renewed  diligence  to  secure  for  the  State  the 
best  results  possible  in  these  premises,  and  which  results,  during  the  Forty- 
eighth  Congress,  consisted  in  a  favorable  report  being  made  in  behalf  of 
the  measure  both  by  the  Senate  and  House  Committees  on  Public  Lands, 
copy  of  which  report  (No.  1969)  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
and  marked  Exhibit  No.  22. 

Notwithstanding  having  thus  received  said  favorable  reports  in  both 
Senate  and  House  in  behalf  of  this  measure,  fearing  that  we  would  not 
secure  any  final  separate  action  on  this  claim  in  the  form  of  an  indepen- 
dent bill,  as  it  was  now  getting  late  in  the  session,  it  occurred  to  me,  in 
view  of  such  favorable  action  by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Public  Lands, 
that  the  Senate  would  possibly  favorably  entertain  a  proposition  to  incor- 
porate a  provision  in  the  General  Deficiency  Bill,  by  way  of  an  amendment 
thereto,  to  cover  the  amount  of  said  claim  as  same  existed  on  June  30,  1883. 

With  this  object  in  view  I  prepared  an  appropriate  amendment  to  the 
House  Deficiency  Bill  No.  7235  of  the  first  session  of  the  Forty-eighth  Con- 
gress, after  said  bill  had  reached  the  Senate,  that  would  cover  this  proposi- 
tion, and  at  my  request  the  late  Senator  John  F.  Miller,  on  June  16,  1884, 
introduced  the  same  in  the  Senate,  and  had  it  referred  to  the  Senate  Appro- 
priation Committee;  copy  of  which  amendment  is  hereto  attached  and 
made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  22-^. 

But  the  Senate  Appropriation  Committee  failed  to  give  the  same  any 
favorable  action,  so  that,  notwithstanding  sundry  efforts  made  on  my  part 


J4 

in  these  premises,  I  found  that  it  was  impossible  either  to  reach  or  take  up 
in  either  the  Senate  or  House,  this  proposition,  either  as  independent  bills 
or  as  an  amendment  to  an  appropriation  bill;  therefore,  the  Forty-eighth 
Congress  adjourned  without  any  action  on  either  thereof,  other  than  as 
herein  reported;  and  both  of  said  bills  were  on  the  calendars  of  Senate  and 
House  on  the  day  of  final  adjournment,  and  both  with  a  favorable  report. 

When  the  Forty-ninth  Congress  convened  I  again  renewed  my  efforts  in 
behalf  of  this  same  measure,  by  preparing  two  more  bills  to  cover  this  same 
claim. 

In  view  of  the  non-arrival  of  Senator  Miller  in  Washington  when  the 
Forty-ninth  Congress  met,  I  awaited  his  arrival,  believing  that  he  could 
take  up  in  the  Senate  this  measure,  he  having  had  charge  thereof  during 
the  Forty-eighth  Congress,  but  when  he  did  arrive,  and  finding  that  he  was 
unable  to  take  his  seat  in  the  Senate,  I  thereupon  brought  this  same  matter 
to  the  attention  of  the  Hon.  Leland  Stanford,  who,  on  January  11, 1886,  at 
my  request,  introduced  one  of  said  bills,  to  wit.  Senate  Bill  No.  994,  and 
Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  on  December  21, 1885,  at  my  request,  introduced  the 
other  of  said  two  bills,  to  wit,  H.  R.  No.  150,  copies  of  which  bills  are 
hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibits  Nos.  23 
and  24. 

I  thereupon  prepared  an  argument  to  support  each  of  said  two  bills,  aild 
filed  same  with  both  the  Senate  and  House  Committees  on  Public  Lands, 
said  argument  covering  about  the  same  grounds  as  hereinbefore  particu- 
larly described,  and  in  due  time  both  of  said  two  bills  were  favorably 
reported  upon,  to  wit,  in  the  Senate,  on  the  fifteenth  of  February,  1886, 
and  in  the  House,  on  the  tenth  of  March,  1886,  copies  of  which  reports, 
No.  994,  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit 
No.  25. 

An  examination  of  this  report  will  show,  like  Report  No.  1969,  in  the 
Forty-eighth  Congress,  that  said  committees  adopted  quite  verbatim  in  the 
arguments  which  I  had  submitted  in  behalf  of  this  measure,  including  as 
their  exhibits  thereto  to  both  of  said  reports,  the  eight  (8)  tables  of  statis- 
tics in  full,  as  compiled  by  me  and  as  hereinbefore  described. 

In  due  course  of  proceedings  this  Sen«.te  Bill  No.  994  was  reached  in 
the  Senate  calendar,  to  wit,  on  May  18, 1886,  on  which  day  certain  proceed- 
ings were  had  thereon  in  the  Senate,  copy  of  which  proceedings  is  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  26. 

Anticipating  that  action  on  this  measure  would  be  had  in  the  Senate  on 
May  18,  1886,  I  was  present  in  the  Senate  gallery,  and  noticing  what  had 
taken  place  in  regard  to  this  measure,  I  immediately  thereafter  sought  an 
interview  with  Senator  Allison,  to  know  his  reasons  or  grounds  of  objection, 
and  learned  from  him  that  he  thought  this  Senate  Bill  No.  994  proposed  to 
revive, /or  California  alone,  the  provisions  of  the  old  Military  Bounty  Land 
Warrant  Five  Per  Cent  Senate  Bill  No.  67,  and  as  hereinbefore  referred  to, 
and  if  such  was  its  intention  and  purpose,  he  said  he  desired  to  submit 
an  amendment  to  this  bill,  and  such  as  would  include  or  cover  the  case  of 
his  State  of  Iowa;  but  I  informed  him  that  this  Senate  bill  was  confined 
exclusively  to  proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of  public  lands  in  California,  and 
that  its  object  was  solely  to  place  the  State  of  California  on  the  same  plane 
as  was  at  that  very  time  enjoyed  by  his  State  of  Iowa. 

Senator  Allison  thereupon  promised  me  to  look  into  this  Senate  Bill  No. 
994  at  his  first  leisure,  and  if  he  found  it  to  be  as  I  stated  to  him  it  was, 
that  he  would  not  further  object  thereto.  Later  other  certain  proceedings 
were  had  in  the  Senate  on  this  same  bill,  to  wit,  on  June  8,  1886,  copy  of 


15 

which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit 
No.  27. 

I  never  was  officially  informed  of  the  cause  of  this  later  objection  by 
Senator  Plumb. 

Thereafter,  certain  other  proceedings  were  had,  to  wit,  on  June  19, 1886, 
copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibit  No.  28. 

As  Senator  Allison  had  not  objected  the  second  time  to  the  considera- 
tion of  this  measure  in  the  Senate,  when  Senate  Bill  No.  994  was  called 
up  from  the  Senate  calendar,  I  requested  the  Hon.  Barclay  Henley  to 
accompany  me  on  another  interview  to  see  Senator  Allison,  and  to  ascertain 
his  reasons  for  his  said  objection  to  the  consideration  of  this  measure;  and 
he  informed  Mr.  Henley  and  myself,  "that  while  he  had  no  objection  him- 
self to  this  measure,  on  the  contrary,  he  having  duly  considered  the  same, 
as  he  had  promised  to  do,  and  that  he  favored  this  bill,  yet  as  Senator 
Stanford  was  not  present  in  the  Senate  on  June  19, 1886,  or  in  Washington 
City  when  this  bill  was  called  up,  and  as  Senator  Stanford  had  prior  to 
Ijis  departure  froni  Washington,  expressed  to  him  a  desire  to  be  present 
when  this  bill  should  be  considered  in  the  Senate,  that  out  of  respect  to 
Senator  Stanford's  wishes  so  expressed,  he  therefore  desired  the  measure 
to  go  over;  only  this  and  nothing  more. 

Thereafter  other  certain  proceedings  were  had  on  this  bill,  on  July  9, 
1886,  and  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibit  No.  29. 

I  subsequently  learned  that  Senator  Miller  of  New  York,  the  last  ob- 
jector to  this  Senate  Bill  No.  994,  had  no  special  reasons  for  antagonizing 
the  measure  contained  therein;  but  as  the  calendar  on  July  9,  1886,  was 
being  considered  under  the  Senate's  five-minute  rule,  he,  thinking  that  the 
measure  would  lead  to  debate,  preferred  to  have  the  measure  "go  over" 
rather  than  risk  consuming  time  in  its  consideration. 

And  as  on  this  occasion  neither  of  the  California  Senators  were  present 
in  the  Senate,  and  as  the  session  was  drawing  to  a  close,  and  as  this  last 
objection  had  the  effect  to  carry  this  bill  over  in  the  list  of  "  bills  objected 
to "  on  the  Senate  calendar,  which  thereby  and  thereafter  would  require 
unanimous  consent  to  call  it  up,  unless  that  portion  of  the  Senate  calendar 
was  [under  consideration,  which  it  never  was  again  during  the  session,  I 
therefore  determined,  in  view  of  all  these  premises,  and  to  make  one  more 
last  effort  in  the  Forty-ninth  Congress,  and  similar  to  that  which  I  had 
made  in  the  Forty-eighth  Congress,  to  wit,  through  the  Appropriation 
Committee,  by  having  an  amendment  proposed  to  the  Sundry  Civil  Appro- 
priation Bill,  and  to  secure  this  measure  by  a  general  amendment,  and 
which,  due  to  the  absence  of  both  the  California  Senators,  I  had  submitted 
through  Senator  Mitchell  of  Oregon.  Copy  of  this  amendment  is  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  30. 

The  Appropriation  Committee,  however,  considering  this  amendment  as 
proposing  new  legislation  so  far  as  it  would  include  California,  deemed  it 
not  permissible  under  the  rules  of  the  Senate,  and,  in  consequence,  it 
failed  to  be  incorporated  in  that  or  in  any  other  appropriation  bill. 

I  thereupon  abandoned  all  hope  of  securing  action  on  this  measure  dur- 
ing the  last  stages  of  the  first  session  of  the  Forty-ninth  Congress,  but  only 
when  it  was  drawing  to  a  final  close.  As  any  favorable  action  that  might 
have  been  secured  in  the  Senate  for  this  measure  at  the  first  session  of  the 
Forty-ninth  Congress  on  this  separate  Senate  Bill  No.  994,  would  have 
failed  to  receive  any  recognition  in  the  House,  and  because  by  legislative 
tactics  now  fully  known  to  the  country,  the  House  persistently  refused  to 


16 

consider  any  matters  on  any  of  its  several  calendars  for  more  than  a 
month  prior  to  its  final  adjournment,  and  for  such  reasons  it  failed  to  take 
up  or  consider  Mr.  Henley's  Five  Per  Cent  Bill,  No.  164,  which  had  been 
favorably  reported  upon  by  the  House  Public  Lands  Committee  by  the 
Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  and  which  bill  so  stood  on  its  calendar  on  the  day 
of  its  final  adjournment,  I  have  prepared,  and  now  append  hereto  and 
make  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  31,  a  statement  of  the  total 
cash  sales  of  all  the  public  lands  in  California  made  by  the  United  States 
up  to  June  30,  1885,  showing  also  the  annual  simple  interest  thereof  for 
each  year  to  June  30,  1885,  which  interest  the  State  has  thus  far  lost,  and 
now  continues  to  lose,  at  the  rate  of  $37,131  87  per  annum. 

This  table  shows  that  by  the  failure  of  prosecuting  this  claim  prior 
hereto  to  a  success,  the  State  of  California  has  lost,  in  simple  interest 
alone,  the  sum  of  $424,030  74. 

I  have  thus,  step  by  step,  reported  to  you  fully  the  successive  proceed- 
ings had  by  the  United  States  upon  this  measure  during  the  last  eight  (8) 
years  since  I  have  had  charge  thereof  as  agent  and  counsel  in  behalf  of 
the  State  of  California;  and  I  state  without  any  fear  of  successful  contra- 
diction that  it  has  not  been  due  to  any  fault  or  laches  of  mine  that  the 
proceeds  of  this  claim  have  not  been  as  yet  placed  in  cash  among  the 
funds  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  California  in  their  State  Treasury. 

In  conclusion,  I  beg  to  report  that  I  shall  hereafter  renew  my  efforts  in 
behalf  of  this  measure,  knowing  as  I  do,  and  that  which  you  will  readily 
perceive,  that  the  main  work  in  these  premises  has  already  been  done  by 
me ;  and  which  work  in  due  time  must,  in  my  opinion,  eventuate  in  giving 
California  all  proper  benefits  of  this  meritorious  proposition,  the  proceeds 
arising  therefrom  to  be  expended  for  such  purposes  as  the  Legislature  of 
California  may  hereafter  wisely  determine. 

And  all  of  which  is  now  very  respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  State  of  California. 


No.  2.    CALIFORNIA  DIRECT  TAX  CLAIM. 

In  my  capacity  as  State  Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  State  of  Oregon,  I 
was  called  upon,  in  1881,  by  Hon.  W.  W.  Thayer,  the  Governor  thereof, 
to  represent  and  defend  the  interests  of  that  State  in  the  matter  of  its  pro- 
test against  that  certain  action  of  the  accounting  officers  of  the  United 
States  Treasury  Department,  at  Washington,  District  of  Columbia,  which 
consisted  in  their  crediting  upon  the  books  of  the  Treasury  Department  the 
earnings  of  the  State  of  Oregon  arising  from  the  five  per  cent  of  the  net 
proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of  the  public  lands  therein,  instead  of  paying 
the  same  from  time  to  time  over  in  cash  to  said  State,  as  the  same  were 
earned,  the  said  earnings  having  been  used  as  a  set-off  to  Oregon^s  quota  of 
the  direct  tax  levied  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  upon  said  State  by  the 
United  States,  in  the  sum  of  $35,140  66,  and  which  quota  the  State  of 
Oregon  having  assumed  but  failed  to  pay,  had  been  treated  by  the  United 
States  as  a  debt  still  due  the  United  States  by  said  State. 

In  order  to  meet  this  Oregon  case  as  it  actually  existed,  it  became  nec- 
essary for  me  to  carefully  study  the  entire  United  States  direct  tax  system, 
and  all  matters  connected  therewith;  and  also  to  ascertain  the  principle  of 


,17 

set-offs  as  then  and  still  in  vogue  as  a  practice  by  the  accounting  officers 
of  the  Treasury,  to  whom  I  presented  such  arguments  against  such  prac- 
tice in  the  Oregon  case  as  to  me  seemed  valid,  but  without  any  successful 
result. 

Having  exhausted  all  executive  remedy  in  this  matter,  I  found  it  abso- 
lutely necessary,  therefore,  to  go  to  Congress  for  adequate  relief  in  regard 
thereto. 

It  was  thus  while  familiarizing  myself  with  these  matters  that  I  discov- 
ered a  peculiar  condition  of  things  relating  to  the  direct  tax  quota  that 
had  been  levied  upon  the  State  of  California,  which,  somewhat  like  that  of 
Oregon's  direct  tax  case,  might  be  and  I  thought  could  be  bettered,  and 
which  I  was  willing  to  undertake  to  do  if  duly  authorized.  Thereupon  I 
brought  the  entire  matter  to  the  attention  of  Hon.  George  C.  Perkins  as 
Governor  of  California,  who,  after  maturely  considering  the  same,  conferred 
upon  me,  on  December  12,  1882,  his  authority  to  represent  the  interests  of 
the  State  of  California  therein,  and  in  a  commission,  copy  of  which  is  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  1. 

This  matter  was  therjeafter  brought  by  Governor  Perkins  to  the  attention 
of  the  Legislature  of  California,  in  his  last  annual  message  to  that  body, 
copy  of  which  reference  has  been  heretofore  appended,  as  my  Exhibit  No. 
19  to  my  five  per  cent  report,  and  to  which  reference  is  now  made. 

The  Legislature,  having  had  the  subject-matter  under  its  consideration, 
duly  ratified  and  confirmed  my  said  appointment,  and  determined  upon 
.and  fixed  in  a  contract  the  compensation  that  I  should  receive  in  the 
premises  if  successful;  and  copy  of  which  action  has  been  heretofore 
appended  as  my  Exhibit  No.  21  to  my  five  per  cent  report,  and  to  which 
reference  is  now  made. 

Having  authority,  therefore,  from  the  State  of  California  to  represent  her 
interests  in  all  matters  that  related  to  the  adjustment  of  her  quota  of  the 
direct  tax  of  $20,000,000  levied  on  the  several  States  under  the  Act  of 
August  5,  1861,  I  proceeded  at  the  first  session  of  Congress  that  convened 
next  after  the  date  of  my  said  appointment  to  bring  this  matter  to  the 
attention  of  Congress;  and  having  at  the  same  time  full  authority  to  repre- 
sent similar  interests  of  the  States  of  Oregon  and  Nevada,  I  brought  fully 
to  the  attention  of  their  respective  delegations  in  Congress  all  that  was 
necessary  to  be  known  to  them  in  these  premises. 

This  subject  seemed  to  me  to  divide  itself  naturally  into  two  subdivisions: 

First — To  secure  for  each  of  said  States  a  recognition  of  the  principle 

that  notwithstanding  the  expiration  of  the  limitations  of  time  named  in 

the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  which  fixed  June  30,  1862,  and  September  30, 

1862,  as  the  two  dates  prior  to  which,  if  payment  of  said  tax  was  made, 

should  entitle  the  States  so  paying  the  same  to  a  rebate  of  a  certain  per 

cent,  to  wit,  if  paid  prior  to  June  30,  1862,  a  rebate  of  fifteen  per  cent,  or  if 

not  paid  prior  to  June  30,  1862,  but  if  paid  prior  to  September  30,  1862,  a 

rebate  of  ten  per  cent  of  the  amounts  so  by  them  paid;  and  if  paid  after 

September  30,  1862,  then  no  rebate  was  provided  for  in  the  statutes.     Yet 

it  seemed  to  me  that  if  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada  had  paid  or  should 

pay  their  respective  quotas  of  said  direct  tax  even  subsequent  to  September 

30,  1862,  and  that  without  any  expense  whatsoever  to  the  United  States, 

that  then  and  in  that  event  each  of  said  States  should  in  equity  be  entitled 

10  receive  a  rebate  of  full  fifteen  per  cent  on  their  respective  payments, 

fifteen  per  cent  having  been  estimated  by  the  United  States  to  be  about 

the  cost  to  the  United  States  to  be  incurred  to  put  its  own  Federal  machinery 

in  motion  in  the  several  States  for  the  purpose  of  assessing,  levying,  and 
2m 


18 

collecting  said  direct  tax;  so  that  an  equity,  in  my  judgment,  could  be 
invoked,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  this  tax  had  been  eventually  collected 
from  said  States  without  the  United  States  incurring  any  expense  whatso- 
ever in  the  premises. 

Second — That  as  an  examination  by  me  of  the  records  in  the  Treasury 
Department  had  disclosed  the  fact  that  some  of  the  States  had  paid  their 
full  quota  of  this  direct  tax,  while  others  had  paid  only  a  portion  thereof, 
and  while  still  others  had  not  paid  any  thereof,  that  an  equitable  adjustment 
of  the  whole  matter  of  this  direct  tax  could  be  found  by  Congress  enacting 
a  law  by  which  there  should  be  refunded  to  each  State  the  amount  of  said 
direct  tax  that  it  had  already  paid,  and  to  release  each  State  from  there- 
after paying  any  portion  thereof  which  had  not  been  paid,  but  which  was 
still  due  and  payable,  and  for  which  unpaid  balance  such  State  was  being 
treated  as  a  delinquent  debtor  upon  the  books  of  the  Treasury  Department. 

For  the  purpose  of  securing  the  first  of  these  two  propositions,  in  behalf 
of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada,  I  prepared  appropriate  bills  accord- 
ingly; and  at  my  request  each  of  the  same  was  duly  introduced  in  the 
Senate  and  House,  and  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Senate  Bill  No.  511,  by  Honorable  James  H.  Slater,  December  10,  1883 
for  Oregon. 

Senate  Bill  No.  665,  by  Honorable  John  P.  Jones,  December  13,  1883 
for  Nevada. 

Senate  Bill  No.  810,  by  Honorable  John  F.  Miller,  December  19,  1883 
for  California. 

And  in  the  House,  as  follows,  to  wit: 

House  Bill  No.  108,  by  Honorable  Barclay  Henley,  December  10,  1883 
for  California. 

House  Bill  No.  953,  by  Honorable  George  W.  Cassidy,  December  11, 1883 
for  Nevada. 

House  Bill  No.  1310,  by  Honorable  M.  C.  George,  December  11,  1883 
for  Oregon. 

Copies  of  which  bills  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibits  2,  3,  4.  In  support  of  said  Senate  bills,  I  prepared  argu- 
ments and  submitted  same  to  the  appropriate  Senate  committees  to  which 
the  same  had  been  referred  for  reports,  and  also  to  each  of  the  Senators 
who  had  introduced  same  respectively,  and  a  copy  of  which  argument  is 
hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  5. 

I  also  prepared  an  argument  in  support  of  said  three  House  bills,  and 
submitted  same  to  the  appropriate  House  committees  to  which  the  same 
had  been  referred  for  reports,  and  also  to  each  of  the  members  of  the  House 
who  had  introduced  the  same  respectively;  copy  of  which  argument  is 
hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  6. 

Finding  that  Senate  Bills  No.  511,  for  Oregon,  and  No.  655,  for  Nevada, 
had  been  referred  to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Claims,  while  Senate  Bill 
No.  810,  for  California,  had  been  referred  to  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Finance,  and  having  made,  with  the  aid  of  the  late  Senator  Miller  of  Cali- 
fornia, several  ineffectual  and  unsuccessful  efforts  to  secure  a  change  of 
reference  of  said  Senate  Bill  No.  810,  for  California,  to  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Claims,  from  the  Finance  Committee,  where  I  soon  discovered 
that  no  favorable  action  would  be  had,  but  where  it  seemed  to  me  unfavor- 
able action  was  likely  to  arise,  and  desiring  that  Senator  Miller  should  not 
be  taxed  with  the  responsibility  of  introducing  two  separate  Senate  bills, 
each  having  in  view  only  one  and  having  the  same  object,  and  to  be  referred 
to  two  different  Senate  committees,  I  therefore  prepared  a  second  bill,  and 
which  Senator  Farley,  at  my  request,  introduced  in  the  Senate  on  the 


19 

ninth  day  of  May,  1884,  to  wit.  Senate  Bill  No.  2191,  for  this  same  object, 
copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibit  No.  7. 

This  bill  of  Senator  Farley  was  referred  to  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Claims,  my  desire  being  to  have  one  and  the  same  committee  report  on  all 
three  of  said  bills. 

These  three  bills,  to  wit.  Senate  Bills  Nos.  511,  655,  and  2191,  were  then 
referred  to  Senator  Dolph  for  reports,  and  he,  on  May  14,  1884,  submitted 
to  the  Senate  his  favorable  report.  No.  550,  on  each  thereof,  copy  of  which 
report  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit 
No.  7i 

By  this  time,  and  in  view  of  my  observations  in  seeing  said  Senate  Bill 
No.  810  going  to  one  committee  and  said  Senate  Bills  Nos.  511  and  655 
going  to  another  and  different  committee,  I  concluded  it  would  have  been 
wiser  in  the  first  instance  to  have  had  only  one  bill  in  the  Senate  that 
would  have  included  all  the  provisions  contained  in  said  three  Senate  bills; 
and  only  one  bill  in  the  House  that  would  have  included  all  the  provisions 
contained  in  said  three  House  bills;  and  so  that  all  three  should  be  con- 
sidered at  one  and  the  same  time  by  one  and  the  same  committee.  With 
this  object  in  view  I  therefore  prepared  a  separate  House  bill  that  would 
include  all  the  provisions  contained  in  said  three  House  bills,  to  wit,  H.  R. 
No.  108  and  No.  953,  and  No.  1310,  and  at  my  request  the  same  was  intro- 
duced in  the  House  on  twenty-eighth  April,  1884,  by  Hon.  John  R.  Glass- 
cock, H.  R.  6772,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
and  marked  Exhibit  No.  7^.  I  also  suggested  to  Senator  Dolph  that  when 
reporting  back  said  three  Senate  bills  that  he  would  report  one  substitute 
for  the  whole,  and  in  view  of  the  character  and  merit  of  the  subject  of  said 
bills  and  the  lateness  of  the  session  rendering  action  on  these  bills  as  sep- 
arate measures  difficult  if  not  impossible,  to  secure  an  order  of  reference  of 
his  said  report  from  the  Senate  Committee  on  Claims  to  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations  ;  and  Senator  Dolph,  therefore,  acquiescing  in  my 
suggestion,  when  submitting  his  said  report,  submitted  one  bill  as  a  substi- 
tute for  said  three  Senate  bills,  to  wit,  Nos.  511,  655,  and  2191,  and  in  this 
form,  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  May,  1884,  he  submitted  the  same  to  the 
Senate  as  an  amendment  to  be  proposed  to  the  General  Deficiency  Appro- 
priation Bill,  and  asked  its  reference  to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Appro- 
priations, and  copy  of  which  substitute  and  said  amendment  is  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  8. 

In  this  shape  this  measure  to  grant  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada, 
respectively,  fifteen  per  cent  of  their  full  quota  of  the  direct  tax,  as  levied 
upon  them  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  passed  the  Senate,  and  there- 
after went  to  the  House  for  its  action  thereon.  The  House  refused  to  con- 
cur therein,  whereupon  this  bill  was  thereafter  referred  to  a  conference 
committee  composed  of  three  (3)  members  of  the  Senate  and  three  (3) 
members  of  the  House,  and  before  which  conference  committee  I  appeared 
and  renewed  all  the  arguments  in  support  thereof  similar  to  those  which  I 
had  hitherto  submitted  to  the  Senate  and  House  committees,  and  finally, 
said  conference  committee  agreed  to  recommend  to  their  respective  houses 
the  passage  of  said  measure,  and  which  recommendation  having  been  con- 
curred in,  said  bill  passed  both  Senate  and  House,  and  became  a  law  on 
the  seventh  day  of  July,  1884. 

In  the  House,  on  the  other  hand,  we  could  not  secure  not  only  any  favor- 
able action,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  general  subject  of  direct  tax  legisla- 
tion developed  various  antagonisms,  but  none  of  which  seemed  to  me  to 
rest  on  any  valid  foundation ;  but  these  antagonisms,  such  as  they  were, 


20 

were  sufficient  to  prevent  any  final  action  thereon  during  the  Forty-eighth 
Congress,  other  than  herein  stated.  These  antagonisms  will  be  hereafter 
referred  to  by  me  when  reporting  upon  the  second  branch  of  this  direct  tax 
subject. 

This  bill,  granting  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada  a  rebate  of  fifteen  per 
cent  on  their  full  quota  of  this  direct  tax,  having  become  a  law  on  the  sev- 
enth of  July,  1884,  I  immediately  thereafter  requested  the  proper  account- 
ing officers  of  the  Treasury  to  state  an  account  in  behalf  of  the  State  of 
California  for  the  settlement  of  this  claim.  This  statement  was  made  on 
July  23,  1884,  in  Treasury  Report  No.  43,395,  in  the  office  of  the  Fifth 
Auditor,  and  confirmed  by  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasviry  on  August 
22,  1884 ;  copy  of  all  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
and  marked  Exhibit  No.  9. 

California's  quota  of  this  direct  tax  of  $20,000,000,  levied  under  the  Act 
of  August  5,  1861,  was  $254,538  67,  and  upon  which  she  had  paid  in  sec- 
ond quarter,  1862,  as  follows,  to  wit : 

After  September  30,  1862,  to  wit,  on  October  7, 1862,  the  sum  of $63,839  31 

And  during  first  quarter  1863 183,606  10 

Making  a  total  payment  only  of -.- $247,445  41 

Leaving  unpaid  and  due  on  October  8, 1875,  the  sum  of 7,093  26 

In  evidence  whereof  see  letter  of  Hon.  C.  C.  Fairchild,  Acting  Secretary 
of  Treasury,  dated  July  14,  1886,  inclosing  the  manuscript  certificate  of 
Settlement  No.  10,813,  made  seventeenth  March,  1874,  by  Fifth  Auditor, 
and  confirmed  eighth  October,  1875,  by  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treas- 
ury, and  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit 
No.  10. 

This  sum  of  $7,093  26  due  the  United  States  by  the  State  of  California, 
and  unpaid  at  the  date  of  the  said  settlement  made  in  said  Report  No. 
10,813  (see  manuscript  certificate),  by  Fifth  Auditor  of  the  Treasury,  March 
17, 1874,  and  confirmed  by  First  Comptroller  October  8, 1875,  had  been  on 
February  8,  1884,  reduced  to  $6,597  54,  by  crediting  California  with  the 
sum  of  $495  72  on  account  of  the  '^ Modoc  Indian  war  claim  "  (and  to  which 
full  reference  will  be  by  me  hereafter  made  in  my  Report  No.  3  on  Cali- 
fornia's Modoc  Indian  war  claim),  and  which  reduction  will  fully  appear 
from  Settlement  No.  39,283,  made  February  7, 1884,  by  the  Fifth  Auditor, 
and  on  February  8, 1884,  confirmed  by  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treas- 
ury, copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibit  No.  11. 

Therefore,  on  July  7, 1884,  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this  fifteen  per  cent 
rebate  bill,  the  State  of  California  was  still  indebted  to  the  United  States 
on  account  of  the  balance  due  on  her  quota  of  this  direct  tax,  in  the  sum 
of  $6,597  54,  and  as  fully  appears  in  said  Settlement  No.  43,395,  and  made 
by  the  Fifth  Auditor  on  twenty-third  July,  1884,  and  confirmed  by  the 
First  Comptroller  on  twenty-second  August,  1884,  same  being  my  Exhibit 
No.  9  herein. 

In  making  this  final  settlement  between'  the  United  States  and  the  State 
of  California,  the  first  thing,  therefore,  done  by  the  Fifth  Auditor  of  the 
Treasury,  was  to  credit  the  State  of  California  with  fifteen  per  cent  of  her 
whole  quota  of  said  direct  tax,  to  wit,  $254,538  67. 

And  which  fifteen  per  cent  thereof  was  and  is --•-. - - $38,180  80 

And  to  thereafter  deduct  therefrom  the  amount  of  said  balance  of- 6,597  54 

Leaving  due  California  by  the  United  States  a  cash  diflerence  of $31,583  26 


21 

And  for  which  a  draft  upon  the  Sub-Treasurer  in  San  Francisco,  to  the 
order  of  the  Governor  of  California,  was  dehvered  to  me  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  and  which  was  by  me  delivered  to  the  Governor  of  the 
State  of  California  in  August,  1884,  and  the  proceeds  whereof  (less  the  com- 
mission due  me,  and  as  fixed  by  my  contract  with  the  Legislature  on  March 
3,  1883)  were  duly  paid  by  you  into  the  State  Treasury;  and  as  fully 
appears  in  your  message  to  the  Legislature,  dated  January  5,  1885,  extract 
from  which  covering  this  special  reference  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a 
part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  12. 

In  order  that  you  may  fully  understand  how,  as  late  as  October  8,  1875, 
the  State  of  California  became  indebted  to  the  United  States  in  the  sum  of 
$7,093  26  on  account  of  her  quota  of  said  direct  tax,  I  desire  to  report  that 
the  State  of  California  having,  under  the  Act  of  her  Legislature  approved 
April  12,  1862,  assumed  the  responsibility  of  collecting  and  paying  the 
whole  of  her  quota  of  $254,538  67  of  the  direct  tax  of  $20,000,000  levied 
by  the  United  States  under  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  5,  1861 
(U.  S.  Statutes,  vol.  12,  page  296),  and  having  provided,  as  she  did,  all 
the  necessary  and  proper  State  machinery  for  levying  and  collecting  the 
same,  that  prior  to  September  30,  1862,  there  had  been  collected  of  this 
direct  tax,  and  paid  into  the  State  Treasury  of  California  in  gold  coin,  the 
sum  of  $70,932  56|. 

Hon.  D.  R.  Ashley,  then  State  Treasurer,  and  in  possession  of  said 
$70,932  56f  in  gold  coin,  converted  the  same  into  greenback  currency,  and 
prior  to  September  30,  1862,  made  a  tender  of  such  currency  to  the  United 
States  Sub-Treasurer  at  San  Francisco,  California,  in  part  payment  of  Cali- 
fornia's quota  of  said  direct  tax.  Said  Sub-Treasurer,  D.  W.  Cheeseman, 
Esq.,  knowing  that  this  sum  had  been  collected  in  gold  coin,  and  not  in 
currency,  claimed  that  it  should  have  been  paid  by  Mr.  Ashley  into  the 
United  States  Treasury  in  the  gold  coin  in  which  it  had  been  so  collected. 
This  Mr.  Ashley  declined  to  do,  whereupon  the  question  was  referred  to 
the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  at  Washington  for  decision,  and 
that  officer  directed  the  Sub-Treasurer  to  receive  the  tax  in  currency,  as  it 
was  so  tendered. 

But  by  the  time  this  decision  and  order  was  received  at  San  Francisco 
back  from  Washington,  the  thirtieth  of  September,  1862,  had  come  and 
gone,  and  as  this  law  authorized  a  rebate  only  in  the  event  that  an  actual 
payment  should  be  made  on  or  prior  to  September  SO,  1862,  at  the  very 
latest,  and  as  the  money  was  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  actually  paid  over 
by  Mr.  Ashley  to  the  United  States  until  after  September  30,  1862,  to  wit, 
on  October  7,  1862,  the  United  States  refused  to  recognize  the  claim  of  the 
State  of  California  to  any  rebate  in  the  premises. 

But  Mr.  Ashley,  taking  a  different  view,  and  asserting  that  the  State  of 
California  was  entitled,  in  his  opinion,  to  a  rebate  at  least  of  ten  per  cent 
on  said  $70,932  56f ,  did  himself  deduct  ten  per  cent  thereof,  to  wit, 
$7,093  25|,  which  he  turned  into  the  State  Treasury,  and  the  balance,  to 
wit,  $63,839  31,  he  paid  over  to  the  United  States  as  a  first  installment 
and  in  part  payment  of  California's  said  direct  tax  quota.  But  the  United 
States  never  recognized  either  this  claim  of  rebate  or  this  system  of  dis- 
count and  of  bookkeeping  on  the  part  of  the  State  of  California;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  the  United  States  simply  credited  the  State  of  California  with 
the  amounts  of  money  which  she  had  actually  paid,  to  wit,  said  $63,839  31, 
and  subsequently,  to  wit,  in  1863  (when  the  legal  time  within  which  any 
rebate  could  be  claimed  had  fully  expired,  and  that  too  without  question), 
with  a  second  payment  of  $183,606  10,  aggregating  a  total  only  of  $247,- 
445  41,  and  the  United  States  charged  California  with  the  amount  she  had 


22 

not  paid,  to  wit,  $7,093  26,  and  which  charge  ever  remained  upon  the 
books  of  the  Treasury  as  a  debt  against  the  State  of  CaHfornia  due  the 
United  States  until  it  was  liquidated  by  having  been  paid  and  canceled 
by  deducting  this  debt  of  $7,093  26  from  the  two  credits  which  I  had  been 
enabled  to  secure  and  collect  for  the  State  of  California,  and  in  the  man- 
ner hereinbefore  fully  stated,  to  wit: 

First — By  the  California  Modoc  Indian  war  claim  in  the  sum  of $495  72 

Second — And  so  much  of  the  fifteen  per  cent  on  $254,538  67  as  was  necessary  to 
make  up  the  balance  of  said  debt  of  $7,093  26,  towit... 6,597  54 

Aggregating  the  sum  of _ $7,093  26 

And  as  has  been  fully  set  forth  in  the  settlements  hereinbefore  referred 
to,  and  filed  as  exhibits.  The  explanation  made  by  Mr.  Ashley  in  regard 
thereto  is  hereto  attached  and  made  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No. 
13.  From  Mr.  Ashley's  own  report  you  will  therefore  perceive  that  he  made 
the  effort  to  secure  for  California  a  rebate  of  ten  per  cent  on  a  payment  of 
$70,932  56f ,  stating  that  that  sum  was  all  that  could  possibly  he  recovered  or 
saved  to  the  State  of  California  in  this  direct  tax  matter,  but  which  claim  the 
United  States  never  allowed  and  never  recognized,  while  it  also  fully  appears 
herein  that  I  made  the  effort  to  secure  for  California  a  rebate  of  fifteen  per 
cent  on  the  whole  of  her  quota  of  $254,538  67  of  this  direct  tax,  which  I 
succeeded  in  recovering  and  collecting;  and  the  sam&  has  already  been 
paid  into  the  State  Treasury  of  California  in  the  manner  aforesaid,  and  all 
of  which  was  had  and  done  by  me  under  the  authority  conferred  by  Hon. 
George  C.  Perkins  when  Governor  of  California,  and  duly  ratified  by  the 
Legislature  of  California  on  the  third  of  March,  1883,  and  as  hereinbefore 
fully  set  forth. 

SECOND. 

The  second  subdivision  in  the  adjustment  of  this  direct  tax  matter,  as  I 
viewed  the  same,  consisted  in  securing  such  legislation  by  Congress  as 
should  enable  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  refund  to  each  State  such 
portion  of  this  direct  tax  as  it  had  paid,  and  to  relieve  any  State  from 
paying  such  portion  thereof  as  it  had  not  paid. 

In  order  to  accomplish  these  results,  I  prepared  two  bills,  one  of  which^ 
to  wit.  Senate  Bill  No.  795,  was,  at  my  request,  introduced  in  the  Senate 
on  the  eighteenth  of  December,  1883,  by  the  late  Senator  Hon.  John  F. 
Miller;  and  the  other,  to  wit,  H.  R.  No.  110,  at  my  request,  was  introduced 
in  the  House  on  the  tenth  day  of  December,  1883,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Hen- 
ley of  California. 

A  somewhat  similar  bill,  to  wit,  H.  R.  No.  6047,  was  introduced  by  Mr. 
Price  of  Wisconsin,  copies  of  which  bills  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a 
part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibits  No.  14  and  No.  15  respectively. 

In  support  of  these  two  bills  I  prepared  arguments,  and  submitted  the 
same  to  the  proper  committees  having  charge  thereof^  to  wit,  the  Finance 
Committee  in  the  Senate  and  Claims  Committee  in  the  House,  and  gave 
the  members  of  the  California  delegation  duplicates  thereof,  copies  of 
which  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibits 
No.  16  and  No.  17  respectively. 

Said  Senate  Bill  No.  795,  at  the  request  of  Hon.  W.  E.  Earle,  State  Agent 
for  South  Carolina,  was  referred  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
by  Senator  Hampton  of  South  Carolina;  and  said  House  Bill  No.  110,  at 
my  request,  was  referred  to  the  honorable  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury, 
by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley  of  California,  to  secure  the  views  of  these  two 


23 

officers,  who  in  due  time  submitted  to  Congress  terse  reports  thereon,  copies 
of  which  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibits 
No.  18  and  No.  19  respectively. 

The  general  subject-matter  having  thereafter  been  maturely  considered 
in  the  House  by  its  Committee  on  Claims,  that  committee,  on  the  fourth 
day  of  February,  1885,  made  a  majority  favorable  report,  through  Mr.  Price 
of  Wisconsin,  to  wit.  Report  No.  2486,  Part  1,  second  session  Forty-eighth 
Congress,  and  a  minority  report.  Part  2,  through  Mr.  Warner,  copies  of 
which  are  hereto  attached,  made  parts  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  20. 

It  is  due  to  the  history  of  this  case  that  I  should  here  state  that  this 
direct  tax  matter  having  been  referred  to  the  House  Committee  on  Claims, 
was  by  it  referred  to  Hon.  A.  J.  Warner,  as  a  sub-committee  to  examine 
into  and  report  thereon  to  the  full  committee.  Thereafter  I  got  Hon.  Bar- 
clay Henley  to  accompany  me  several  times  to  interview  Hon.  A.  J.  Warner 
on  this  bill,  and  I  was  soon  convinced  that  he  was  not  only  not  favorably 
disposed  in  the  matter,  but  he  finally  had  prepared  an  adverse  report 
thereon,  and  which  he  finally  submitted  to  his  said  committee  and  asked 
its  adoption  as  the  views  of  the  majority  of  said  committee.  Discovering 
this  fact,  the  friends  of  this  measure  were  immediatel}^  interviewed,  and 
the  result  was  that  Mr.  Price  of  Wisconsin,  a  member  of  said  committee 
and  a  warm  friend  of  this  measure,  was  selected  by  its  friends  to  make  a 
minority  report,  and  to  thereafter  move  its  adoption  as  a  substitute  for  Mr. 
Warner's  majority  report,  all  of  which  was  done;  whereupon  Mr.  Price's 
minority  report  was  adopted  and  became  the  majority  report  of  that  com- 
mittee, and  Mr.  Warner's  report,  which  he  had  expected  would  be  the 
majority  report  of  said  committee,  instead  thereof  became  the  minority 
report,  so  that  both  reports  and  history  of  each  are  herewith  submitted  for 
your  information. 

But  this  majority  report  was  made  so  late  in  the  session — as  Congress 
adjourned  March  4,  1885 — ^that  favorable  action  thereon  was  a  matter  of 
legislative  impossibility  during  the  Forty-eighth  Congress. 

But  sufficient,  however,  had  already  been  done,  by  virtue  of  the  fore- 
going showing,  to  disclose  to  Congress  that  to  discriminate  between  those 
States  that  had  assumed  and  paid  their  full  quota  of  this  direct  tax,  and 
those  States  that  had  neither  assumed  nor  paid  the  same,  or  any  portion 
thereof,  was  a  distinction  without  a  difference. 

If  Congress  was  vested  with  constitutional  jurisdiction  to  levy  and  appor- 
tion said  tax  as  made,  then  those  States  upon  which  it  was  levied  were 
legally  obligated  to  raise  and  pay  the  same,  or  failing  so  to  do,  then  to 
submit  to  such  legal  penalties  as  were  provided  for  in  the  Act  of  August 
5, 1861,  that  directed  the  levy  to  be  made,  and  not  to  do  as  Mr.  Bennett  of 
North  Carolina  desired  to  have  done,  to  wit,  to  release  the  delinquent  States 
from  further  paying  up  their  quota  of  this  tax,  and,  as  provided  for  by 
him  in  a  bill,  to  wit,  H.  R.  No.  6713,  by  him  introduced  twenty-first  April, 
1884  (and  without  making  any  provision  for  those  States  that  had  already 
paid  this  tax)  copy  of  which  bill  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part 
hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  21. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  this  direct  tax  was  not  constitutionally  levied 
upon  the  several  States,  as  States — as  in  some  high  quarters  had  been 
assumed  and  argued — then  it  seemed  to  me  that  fair  dealing  suggested 
that  those  States — like  California,  for  instance — which  had  responded  by 
paying  promptly,  and  without  questioning  the  constitutionality  of  the  tax, 
or  the  regularity  of  the  levy  and  collection,  should  now  be  refunded  and 
reimbursed  the  several  amounts  they  had  so  heretofore  paid  to  the  United 
States;  and  when  this  was  done,  then^  in  my  judgment,  it  would  be  in 


24 

order  to  release  the  delinquent  States  from  further  paying  their  delinquent 
debts,  but  not  before. 

While  the  foregoing  proceedings  were  being  had  in  the  House,  we  were 
not  successful  in  securing  any  direct  action  upon  Senator  Miller's  Bill  No. 
795,  in  the  Senate;  but  yet,  by  virtue  of  an  effort  to  have  Congress  pay  the 
State  of  Georgia  the  sum  of  $35,555  42,  on  account  of  an  old  revolutionary 
war  claim,  the  attention  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  country  was  called  to 
this  meritorious  measure,  and,  as  will  appear  in  the  manner  following,  to 
wit,  on  March  28,  1884,  Senator  Brown  of  Georgia  introduced  Senate  Bill 
No.  1948.  A  similar  bill,  to  wit,  H.  R.  No.  4703,  was  introduced  in  the 
House  by  Mr.  Hammond  of  Georgia,  on  February  5,  1884,  both  having 
this  object  in  view. 

A  somewhat  similar  bill,  to  wit,  Senate  Bill  No.  595,  had  been  introduced 
on  December  11, 1883,  by  Senator  Colquitt  of  Georgia,  and  a  report.  Senate 
No.  124,  had  been  made  thereon  by  Senator  Hoar,  on  February  6,  1884, 
and  which  bill  proposed  to  reimburse  the  State  of  Georgia  the  sum  of 
$22,567  42,  on  account  of  expenses  in  that  sum  by  her  incurred  on  account 
of  an  old  Indian  war  claim  arising  therein  between  1795  and  1818,  and 
which  bill  became  a  law,  but  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury, 
instead  of  paying  over  to  Georgia  in  cash  the  sum  thereby  appropriated, 
simply  credited  that  State  with  the  amount  thereof  on  the  books  of  the 
Treasury,  as  a  set-off  against  Georgia's  quota  of  the  direct  tax  then  unpaid 
and  delinquent,  and  as  a  payment  pro  tanto  thereon,  and  hence  the  reason 
for  the  language  used  in  Senator  Brown's  Georgia  Bill,  No.  1948,  and  Mr. 
Hammond's  House  Bill,  No.  4703,  which  proposed  to  repeal,  and  annul,  and 
vacate  any  law,  or  ruling,  or  decision  of  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury 
that  had  undertaken,  or  should  undertake,  to  use  the  money  so  appropriated 
as  a  set-off  to  said  direct  tax  then  delinquent  and  due  by  Georgia  to  the  United 
States,  and  copies  of  which  Bills  Nos.  1948,  4703,  and  595,  and  Reports 
Nos.  124  and  752,  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibits  Nos.  22  and  23. 

Apparently  so  fixed  had  the  House  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  Forty- 
eighth  Congress  become  in  its  conviction  that  some  remedy  was  needed 
to  adjust  by  laiv  a  practice  of  set-offs  that  had  grown  up  without  law  among 
the  United  States  Treasury  officials  at  Washington,  that  a  general  bill,  to 
wit,  H.  R.  No.  7082,  therefor,  was  reported  from  the  House  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee on  the  twentieth  of  May,  1884,  by  Mr.  Hammond,  as  a  substitute 
for  H.  R.  No.  6867,  together  with  a  report  thereon,  to  wit.  House  Report 
No.  1658,  copies  of  which  bill  (H.  R.  No.  7082)  and  Report  No.  1658  are 
hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  24. 

A  favorable  report,  to  wit,  Senate  Report  No.  592,  was  also  made  by 
Senator  Hoar  on  Senator  Brown's  Georgia  Bill,  No.  1948,  on  the  twenty- 
eighth  day  of  May,  1884,  copy  of  which  report  is  hereto  attached  and  made 
a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  25. 

It  was  during  the  discussion  of  Senator  Brown's  Georgia  Bill  No.  1948, 
and  of  the  Report  No.  592  that  was  made  thereon  by  Senator  Hoar  on  the 
twenty-eighth  of  May,  1884,  that  the  acrimonious  but  celebrated  debate 
between  Senator  Brown  of  Georgia  and  Senator  Ingalls  of  Kansas  occurred 
in  the  Senate  on  the  twelfth  of  June,  1884. 

Prior  to  said  discussion  in  the  Senate,  Senator  Dolph  of  Oregon,  believing 
with  me  that  said  Senate  Bill  No.  1948,  and  said  Senate  Report  No.  592 
made  thereon,  secured  a  discrimination  in  favor  of  Georgia,  which  had  not 
yet  paid  her  quota  of  this  direct  tax,  as  against  California  and  Oregon 
(among  other  States),  that  had  paid  the  same,  at  my  request  submitted, 
on  the  twenty-eighth  of  May,  1884,  an  amendment  to  said  Senate  Bill  No'. 


25 

1948,  having  for  its  object  to  place  California  and  Oregon  on  the  same  plane 
as  was  then  sought  to  he  occupied  by  Georgia  in  said  Senate  Bill  No.  1948; 
copy  of  which  amendment  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibit  No.  26. 

The  discussion  of  this  Senate  Bill  No.  1948  and  the  report  made  thereon 
led  to  a  motion  to  recommit  the  same  back  to  the  Claims  Committee,  that 
had  reported  thereon,  and  an  aye  and  nay  vote  having  been  taken  thereon, 
it  was  carried,  by  ayes  twenty-one  and  nays  seventeen;  but  immediately 
after  the  vote  had  been  taken  it  was  discovered,  and  the  point  was  raised, 
that  a  quorum  of  the  Senate  had  not  voted;  and  upon  motion  of  Senator 
Ingalls  therefor,  the  Senate  adjourned;  and  as  the  Senate  prior  to  this  had 
agreed  that  when  the  Senate  adjourned  it  should  adjourn  till  Monday,  the 
Senate  thereupon  adjourned  till  the  following  Monday,  leaving  this  bill  and 
the  subject-matter  to  which  it  related  as  unfinished  business. 

This  was  on  Thursday,  June  12,  1884,  and  the  Senate  adjourned  to  the 
following  Monday,  June  16,  1884. 

I  had  observed  that  this  rdotion  to  recommit  this  Senate  Georgia  Bill  No. 
1948  was  not  accompanied  with  any  instructions  from  the  Senate,  and  it 
further  occurred  to  me  that  this  occasion  was  the  opportune  period  at  which 
the  adjustment  of  this  entire  subject  might  be  made  general,  by  substitut- 
ing the  provisions  contained  in  Senator  Miller's  general  bill,  to  wit.  Senate 
Bill  No.  795,  for  those  contained  in  Senator  Brown's  special  Georgia  Bill 
No.  1948.  I  immediately  laid  my  views  before  Hon.  W.  E.  Earle,  State 
Agent  for  South  Carolina,  who  had  ever  cooperated  with  me  in  the  prem- 
ises, and  whose  State  had  overpaid  this  tax,  and  hence  as  her  State  Agent 
was  as  anxious  as  myself  for  a  satisfactory  adjustment  of  this  whole  sub- 
ject. Therefore,  during  the  interval,  Mr.  Earle  and  myself  held  several 
interviews  with  Senator  Brown  of  Georgia  and  the  late  Senator  Hon.  John 
F.  Miller  of  California,  having  this  object  in  view,  and  which,  at  our  joint 
request,  finally  resulted  as  follows,  to  wit:  in  open  Senate,  before  any  fur- 
ther vote  should  be  had  on  Senator  Brown's  Georgia  Bill  No.  1948,  that 
Senator  Miller  should  offer  his  Senate  Bill  No.  795  as  a  substitute  for  Sen- 
ator Brown's  Georgia  Bill  No.  1948,  and  that  Senator  Brown  would  agree 
to  accept  the  same.  This  agreement  was  fully  carried  out,  and  on  the  fol- 
lowing Monday,  to  wit,  June  16,  1884,  Senator  Miller,  in  open  Senate,  sub- 
mitted, by  way  of  an  amendment,  his  said  Senate  Bill  No.  795  as  a  substitute 
for  Senator  Brown's  Georgia  Bill  No.  1948,  and  which  was  duly  accepted  by 
Senator  Brown  and  ordered  to  he  printed  and  lay  on  the  table;  copy  of  which 
amendment  and  substitute  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibit  No.  27. 

The  first  session  of  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  was  now  drawing  to  a  close, 
and  it  adjourned  without  any  further  action  on  this  measure,  which  stood 
on  the  calendar  of  the  Senate  in  the  form  of  unfinished  business. 

In  view  of  what  had  then  already  taken  place  on  said  Senate  Bill  No. 
795  and  said  House  Bill  No.  110,  I  deemed  it  proper  and  my  duty  to  bring 
the  same  to  the  attention  of  the  Legislature  of  California  at  its  next  session, 
to  wit,  in  January,  1885;  and  for  this  purpose,  I  submitted  a  report  thereon 
to  your  office.-  Thereafter,  the  Legislature,  having  had  the  matter  under 
its  consideration,  did,  on  the  third  of  March,  1885,  pass  Senate  Concurrent 
Resolution  No.  26,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
and  marked  Exhibit  No.  28. 

Copies  of  this  resolution  having  been  forwarded  to  me  by  the  honorable 
Secretary  of  State,  under  the  seal  of  his  office  from  Sacramento,  were  by  me 
filed  with  the  appropriate  committee  in  both  Senate  and  House,  and  given 
to  the  members  of  our  California  delegation  in  Congress. 


26 

A  Presidential  election  having  taken  place  when  the  short  and  last  ses- 
sion of  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  convened,  other  matters  seeming  to  engross 
the  attention  of  that  body,  there  was  an  evident  disposition  not  to  consider 
this  measure.  Surely  the  fact  is  that  though  every  proper  effort  was  made 
by  me  and  other  friends  of  this  bill  to  secure  consideration  thereof,  the 
Forty-eighth  Congress  finally  adjourned  without  any  definite  action  being 
had  thereon  in  either  the  Senate  or  House  other  than  hereinbefore  stated. 

In  consequence  thereof,  when  the  Forty-ninth  Congress  convened,  I 
renewed  my  efforts  in  this  same  direction,  and  with  this  object  in  view  I 
prepared  two  bills,  to  wit:  House  Bill  No.  164,  and  which,  at  my  request, 
was  introduced  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley  on  twenty-first  December,  1885; 
and  also  one  substantially  the  same  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Price  of  Wis- 
consin, on  January  1,  1886,  in  H.  R.  No.  2776,  in  harmony  with  the  Report 
No.  2486,  which  he  had  made  on  February  4,  1885,  on  this  same  subject 
from  the  Committee  on  Claims;  and  in  consequence  of  the  absence  and 
illness,  which  ended  in  death,  of  Senator  Miller  of  California,  who  had 
charge  of  this  measure  during  the  Forty-eighth  Congress,  as  hereinbefore 
fully  reported,  at  my  request,  Hon.  Leland  Stanford  introduced  the  other 
of  said  bills  in  the  Senate  on  the  eleventh  day  of  January,  1886,  to  wit, 
Senate  Bill  No.  995;  copies  of  which  bills  are  hereto  attached  and  made 
parts  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibits  No.  29,  No.  30,  and  No.  31,  respectively. 

Senate  Georgia  Bill  No.  1948,  and  House  Bill  No.  4703,  having  failed 
to  receive  in  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  any  action  in  either  the  Senate  or 
House,  other  than  that  hereinbefore  described,  were  revived  in  the  Forty- 
ninth  Congress  by  the  introduction  by  Senator  Brown  of  Georgia,  of  Senate 
Bill  No.  2457,  which  latter  was  favorably  reported  in  Report  No.  1138,  by 
Senator  George  from  the  Judiciary  Committee,  on  May  18,  1886;  copy  of 
which  bill  and  report  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibits  No.  32  and  No.  33. 

And  by  Mr.  Hammond,  by  the  introduction  in  the  House  of  special  bill, 
to  wit,  H.  R.  No.  1,  and  also  by  a  general  bill,  to  wit,  H.  R.  No.  3,  on  Decem- 
ber 19,  1885,  and  upon  which  bill,  H.  R.  No.  3,  a  Report  No.  35  was  made 
from  the  Judiciary  Committee,  on  the  nineteenth  day  of  January,  1886; 
copies  of  which  bills  and  report  are  hereto  attached  and  made  parts  hereof, 
and  marked  Exhibits  No.  34  and  No.  35  and  No.  36,  respectively. 

The  views  contained  in  this  House  Report  were  antagonized  by  Mr.  Earle 
and  myself,  and  we  were  finally  successful  in  securing  a  favorable  minority 
report  in  the  House  on  twenty-ninth  January,  1886,  on  this  direct  tax 
matter,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibit  No.  37. 

When  this  Georgia  Bill  H.  R.  No.  3,  was,  on  February  8,  1886,  reached 
in  the  House  for  consideration,  Mr.  M^illiam  E.  Earle  and  myself  again 
submitted  a  statement  in  writing  in  regard  thereto,  copy  of  which  is  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  38. 

Whereupon  several  friends  of  our  view  of  this  measure,  to  wit,  Messrs. 
Price  of  Wisconsin,  Taylor  of  Ohio,  Culbertson  of  Texas,  Ranney  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Hepburn  of  Iowa,  and  Little  of  Ohio,  duly  supported  the  same  in 
arguments  which  will  fully  appear  in  Exhibit  No.  39,  hereto  attached  and 
made  parts  hereof. 

In  addition  thereto,  Mr.  Price  submitted  his  bill,  No.  2776,  as  a  substi- 
tute for  said  House  Georgia  bill,  and  Hon.  John  T.  Little  of  Ohio,  offered 
an  amendment  to  Mr.  Hammond's  said  Georgia  bill,  copy  of  which  is 
hereto  attached,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  39^. 

In  addition  thereto,  by  special  appointment  made  therefor,  the  views  of 
Mr.  Earle  and  myself  were,  on  April  20,  1886,  laid  before  Hon.  J.  R.  Eden 


of  Illinois,  Chairman  of  the  sub-committee  of  the  House  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee having  charge  of  this  direct  tax  measure,  in  an  oral  argument;  and 
with  whom  we  submitted  sundry  written  and  printed  statements  on  the 
night  of  April  20,  1886;  and  next  day  supplemented  same  with  a  written 
statement,  copy  whereof  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibit  No.  40. 

In  the  Senate,  Mr.  Earle  and  myself  succeeded  in  having  Senator  Hamp- 
ton (who  had  taken  a  great  interest  in  Senator  Miller's  Senate  Bill  No. 
795  of  the  Forty-eighth  Congress,  and  who  it  was  that  wrOte  as  aforesaid 
to  Secretary  Folger  at  Mr.  Earle's  request  in  regard  thereto,  which  called 
out  the  Secretary's  report  thereon,  and  as  hereinbefore  filed  as  an  Exhibit 
No.  18)  introduce  on  May  24,  1886,  a  substitute  for  Senator  Brown's  said 
Georgia  Bill  No.  2457,  copy  of  which  substitute  is  hereto  attached  and 
made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  41. 

This  substitute  contained  substantially  all  the  matters  contained  in  Sen- 
ator Stanford's  Senate  Bill  No.  995  and  Hon.  Barclay  Henley's  House  Bill 
No.  164,  heretofore  filed  as  exhibits  Nos.  29  and  31. 

In  this  connection  we  called  Senator  Hampton's  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  report  of  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  on  Senator  Brown's  Georgia 
Bill  No.  2457  rested  on  a  wrong  theory,  and  because  from  an  examination 
by  me  made  of  the  laws  of  the  States  of  Georgia  and  Texas  I  found  that 
both  Georgia  and  Texas  had,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  assumed  the  payment  of 
their  quotas  of  this  direct  tax,  and  Georgia  had,  under  an  Act  of  her 
Legislature,  authorized  the  issuance  of  interest-bearing  bonds  with  which 
to  pay  her  quota  of  this  direct  tax,  and  as  will  fully  appear  from  'copies  of 
the  laws  of  Georgia  and  Texas  thereon,  hereto  attached  and  made  parts 
hereof,  and  marked  Exhibits  No.  42  and  No.  43,  respectively. 

On  July  14, 1886,  Senator  Hampton,  in  support  of  his  substitute  for  Sen- 
ator Brown's  Georgia  Bill,  No.  2457,  and  which  was  substantially  identical 
with  the  substitute  which  at  my  request  had  been  offered  in  the  Forty- 
eighth  Congress  by  Senator  Miller  of  California,  as  a  substitute  for  Senator 
Brown's  Georgia  Bill  No.  1948  in  the  Forty-eighth  Congress,  submitted  an 
argument  in  support  of  this  substitute,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached 
and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  44. 

As  the  accounts  between  the  several  States  and  the  United  States  arising 
under  the  settlements  had  on  this  direct  tax,  were  constantly  changing, 
and  thereby  the  status  of  each,  in  relation  to  this  direct  tax  matter,  at  the 
end  of  every  settlement  was  different  from  what  it  had  been  theretofore 
reported  to  be,  and  as  this  was  particularly  true  in  the  case  of  the  State  of 
California,  which  then  owed  nothing  to  the  United  States,  and  as  a  consider- 
able time  had  elapsed  since  Congress  had  been  ofiicially  supplied  with 
authentic  data  in  regard  to  the  exact  amount  of  debt  then  due  the  United 
States  by  any  of  the  States  which  had  been  reported  as  delinquent  in  the 
payment  of  their  respective  quotas  thereof,  I  deemed  it  wise,  whenever 
this  measure  should  be  next  under  consideration,  that  its  friends  in  Con- 
gress should  be  in  possession  of  the  very  latest  facts  in  regard  thereto; 
whereupon  I  prepared  a  resolution  of  inquiry,  which,  at  my  request,  was 
introduced  in  the  House  by  the  Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  in  order  to  secure 
this  information,  copy  of  which  resolution  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a 
part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  45. 

This  resolution  having  been  considered  and  modified  by  the  appropriate 
committee,  was  transmitted  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
who,  on  March  31,  1886,  made  a  reply  thereto,  as  set  forth  in  House  Exec- 
utive Document  No.  158,  first  session.  Forty-ninth  Congress  (copy  of  which 
is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  46), 


28 

and  which  gives  the  latest  pubHshed  official  information  on  this  important 
matter. 

While  Senator  Dolph  of  Oregon  was  willing,  in  the  Forty-eighth  Con- 
gress, to  submit,  and  did  submit,  an  amendment  in  the  Senate  to  Senator 
Brown's  Georgia  Bill  No.  1948,  by  which  if,  at  that  time,  Georgia  was  to 
secure  her  $35,555  42  in  cask,  that  Oregon,  under  his  said  amendment, 
would  also  receive  in  cash  her  $35,140  67,  and  as  set  forth  in  said  amend- 
ment (copy  of  which  has  been  heretofore  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
and  marked  Exhibit  No.  26),  yet  he  was  not  so  confident  that  the  proposi- 
tion contained  in  Senator  Hampton's  said  substitute  exactly  suited  the 
views  or  interests  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  Oregon,  thinking,  as  he 
stated  to  me,  "that  while  Oregon,  under  Senator  Hampton's  amendment, 
would  secure  in  cash  her  $35,140  67,  that  she  already  had  paid  as  her 
quota  of  this  direct  tax,  yet  he  also  thought  that  in  the  end  the  people  of 
Oregon  would  be  taxed  to  raise  a  sum  larger  than  said  $S5J40  67.  In  other 
words,  that  he  thought  that  Oregon,  in  the  event  of  Senator  Hampton's 
substitute  becoming  a  law,  would  have  to  pay  out  more  money  than  the  people 
of  Oregon  would  get  bacJc.'^ 

Learning,  therefore,  that  Senator  Dolph  was  liable  to  antagonize  Senator 
Hampton's  said  substitute  whenever  it  should  be  considered  by  the  Senate, 
and  deeming  it  my  duty,  as  agent  and  counsel  herein  for  the  State  of  Cal- 
ifornia, to  answer  in  a  proper  manner,  and  at  all  proper  times  and  places, 
all  antagonisms  to  this  general  measure,  as  contained  in  said  Senate  Bill 
No.  995  of  Senator  Stanford,  and  in  said  H.  R.  No.  164,  as  introduced  by 
Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  whenever  and  wherever  the  same  could  be  properly 
done,  I,  as  late  as  July  20,  1886,  having  had  several  interviews  with  Sena- 
tor Dolph  thereon,  submitted  to  him  for  his  consideration  an  argument  in 
support  of  the  views  by  me  herein  before  expressed,  and  directed  especially 
against  his  impression  thereon,  then  taking  shape  and  form,  and  copy  of 
which  argument  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibit  No.  47. 

Though  every  proper  effort  was  made  by  me  to  have  this  measure  con- 
sidered in  both  the  Senate  and  House  during  the  first  session  of  the  Forty- 
ninth  Congress,  yet  there  never  seemed  to  me,  or  to  any  other  friends 
thereof,  to  be  that  opportunity;  when  either  body  had  the  time  sufficient, 
or  the  inclination  towards  the  favorable  consideration  of  this  measure,  to 
take  up  and  maturely  weigh  the  same,  and,  therefore,  the  first  session  of 
the  Forty-ninth  Congress  adjourned  with  this  measure  on  the  calendars  of 
both  Houses  in  an  unfinished  condition,  and  in  the  manner  hereinbefore 
more  fully  set  forth. 

I  have  thus,  step  by  step,  given  you  the  history  of  this  measure,  begin- 
ning with  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  (before  which  ddte  it  had  never  before 
been  considered  in  either  House  of  Congress,  and  when  considered  in  the 
Forty-eighth  Congress,  the  same  was  had  and  done  solely  through  my 
agency) ,  and  ending  at  the  first  session  of  the  Forty-ninth  Congress. 

I  make  this  report,  thus  detailed  and  specific,  in  order  that  you  and  the 
people  of  California  may  fully  know  all  that  has  been  done  in  regard  to 
this  particular  claim;  and  in  order  that  a  full  account  of  my  stewardship 
and  agency  in  these  premises  may  become  a  matter  of  official  record  in 
connection  therewith,  and  for  future  reference. 

In  conclusion,  I  beg  to  report  to  you  that  I  shall  hereafter  renew  my 
efforts  in  behalf  of  this  measure,  knowing,  as  I  do,  that  the  main  work  in 
the  premises  has  already  been  done  by  me,  and  which  work,  in  due  time, 
must,  in  my  opinion,  eventuate  in  giving  California  all  the  proper  benefits 
of  this  meritorious  proposition,  the  proceeds  arising  therefrom  to  be  ex- 


29 

pended  for  such  purpose  as  the  Legislature  of  California  may  hereafter 
wisely  determine. 

All  of  which  is  now  very  respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 

Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  State  of  California. 


No.  3.     MODOC  INDIAN  WAR  CLAIM. 

In  my  capacity  as  State  Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  State  of  Oregon,  I 
was  called  upon,  in  1881,  by  Hon.  R.  P.  Earhart,  Secretary  of  State  thereof, 
to  represent  and  prosecute  the  interests  of  that  State  in  the  matter  of  its 
claim  against  the  United  States,  on  account  of  certain  expenses  by  it 
incurred  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  on  its  southern  border, 
during  the  Modoc  Indian  war,  in  1872,  187 S,  and  187 J^.  I  discovered  that 
the  State  of  California,  and  certain  of  its  citizens  residing  in  Siskiyou  and 
Modoc  Counties  therein,  had  also  incurred  sundry  expenses  in  this  same 
Modoc  Indian  war,  no  claim  jor  the  payment  of  which  had  ever  been  urged 
hy  the  State  of  California  or  by  her  citizens  against  the-. United  States ;  and 
which  claims,  though  sm-all  in  amounts,  were  in  my  judgment  valid,  and 
such  as  I  thought  I  could  secure  if  properly  so  authorized.  Knowing,  as  I 
did  then  and  do  now,  that  no  claim  can  be  prosecuted  or  urged  before  the 
Treasury  Department  except  by  a  party  in  propria  persona,  or  by  another 
acting  therein  under  a  written  letter  of  authority  or  power  of  attorney,  I 
therefore  brought  the  entire  matter  to  the  attention  of  Hon.  George  C.  Per- 
kins, as  Governor  of  California,  who,  after  maturely  considering  the  same, 
on  March  7,  1882,  conferred  upon  me  his  authority  to  represent  the  inter- 
ests of  the  State  of  California  and  her  people  therein,  and  in  a  commis- 
sion, copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibit  No.  1. 

This  matter  was  thereafter  brought  by  Governor  Perkins  to  the  attention 
of  the  Legislature  of  California  in  his  last  annual  message  to  that  body; 
copy  of  which  reference  has  been  heretofore  appended  as  my  Exhibit  No. 
19  to  my  '^five  per  cent  report "  herein,  and  to  which  reference  is  now  made. 

The  Legislature  of  California  having  had  the  subject-matter  under  its 
consideration,  duly  ratified  and  confirmed  my  said  appointment,  and  deter- 
mined upon  and  fixed  in  a  contract  the  compensation  that  I  should  receive 
in  these  premises  if  successful,  copy  of  which  action  has  been  heretofore 
appended  as  my  Exhibit  No.  21  to  my  " five  per  cent  report"  herein,  and 
to  which  reference  is  now  made. 

Having  authority,  therefore,  from  the  State  of  California  to  thus  represent 
all  matters  that  related  to  the  adjustment  of  its  interests  in  these  premises, 
I  prepared  a  suitable  bill  to  cover  this  claim,  which,  at  my  request,  the 
late  Senator,  Honorable  John  F.  Miller,  on  seventeenth  March,  1882,  intro- 
duced in  the  Senate,  to  wit.  Senate  Bill  No.  1502.  I  therefore  prepared 
an  argument  in  support  of  said  bill,  and  presented  same  to  the  Committee 
on  Military  Affairs,  to  which  said  bill  had  been  referred  for  examination 
and  report,  and  on  twenty-second  March,  1882,  a  favorable  report,  to  wit. 
Senate  Report  No.  306,  was  made  thereon  by  Senator  Harrison.  Copies 
of  which  bill  and  report  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibit  No.  2. 

I  also  prepared  a  similar  bill  for  this  same  purpose,  which,  at  my  request, 
was,  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  February,  1882,  introduced  in  the  House  by 


30 

Hon.  C.  P.  Berry,  to  wit,  H.  R.  No.  4244,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached 
and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  3. 

Senate  Bill  No.  145,  limited  as  it  was  exclusively  to  Oregon,  in  order  to 
provide  for  its  Modoc  Indian  war  claim,  had  theretofore  been  prepared,  and 
at  my  request  had  been  introduced  in  the  Senate  on  the  sixth  day  of  De- 
cember, 1881,  by  Senator  Grover  of  Oregon,  and  which  had  been  favorably 
reported  upon  on  February  2,  1882,  in  Senate  Report  No.  114,  copies  of 
which  bill  and  report  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibit  No.  4. 

At  the  date  when  this  Oregon  Senate  Bill  No.  145  had  been  introduced 
and  reported  upon  in  the  Senate,  it  did  not  occur  to  me  to  suggest  to  Sena- 
tor Miller  that  when  said  Oregon's  Senate  Bill  No.  145  should  be  considered 
in  the  Senate  to  amend  same  by  incorporatiug  therein  a  provision  for  Cali- 
fornia's Modoc  Indian  war  claim. 

The  said  two  bills,  to  wit.  Senate  Nos.  145  and  1502,  were  therefore  called 
up  and  considered,  and  acted  upon  as  two  separate  measures,  and  both  of 
said  two  bills  passed  the  Senate  on  March  27,  1882,  but  as  two  separate 
and  independent  measures. 

When  said  two  bills  reached  the  House  they  were  both  referred  to  the 
House  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  before  which  committee  I  appeared 
as  counsel  and  agent  for  both  of  said  separate  bills  Nos.  145  and  1502,  and 
suggested  to  said  committee  that  these  two  bills  might  be  appropriately 
considered  together  by  being  consolidated,  and  which  could  be  done  by 
adding  to  said  Senate  Bill  No.  145,  which  then  consisted  of  only  one  sec- 
tion, a  second  section,  that  should  cover  the  provisons  contained  in  said  Cali- 
fornia Senate  Bill  No.  1502,  and  all  of  which  was  done;  and  thus  amended 
by  the  House,  said  Senate  Bill  No.  145  was  favorably  recommended  to  the 
House,  where  it  passed,  and  was  returned  to  the  Senate  for  its  concurrence, 
which  it  secured,  and  also  passed  and  became  a  law  on  the  sixth  day  of 
January,  1883  (U.  S.  Statutes,  vol.  22,  page  399),  copy  of  which  is  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  5. 

This  bill,  authorizing  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  to 
adjust  the  accounts  of  the  State  of  California  against  the  United  States 
arising  in  California  during  the  Modoc  Indian  war  of  1872  and  1873,  having 
thus  become  a  law,  I  thereupon  requested  the  statement  of  an  account  by 
the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury,  in  behalf  of  the  State  of 
California,  for  the  settlement  of  this  claim. 

The  statement  was  thereupon  duly  made  by  the  Third  Auditor  of  the 
Treasury,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibit  No.  6,  and  shows  that  the  United  States  ivas  indebted  to 
the  State  of  California  on  account  of  sundry  claims  arising  in  said  Modoc 
Indian  war  in  the  sum  of  $495  72. 

But  this  sum  of  $495  72,  instead  of  being  paid  over  in  cash  to  the  State 
of  California,  was  credited  to  her  upon  the  books  of  the  United  States 
Treasury  Department  by  the  proper  accounting  officers  thereof,  and  used  as 
a  set-off  and  a  payment,  pro  tanto,  by  the  State  of  California  to  the  United 
States  on  account  of  the  sum  of  $7,093  26,  said  sum  being  a  debt  then  due 
the  United  States  by  the  State  of  California  on  account  of  a  balance  aris- 
ing in  the  settlement  of  the  direct  tax  accounts  between  the  United  States 
and  the  State  of  California,  and  all  of  which  fully  appears  in  Settlement 
No.  39,283,  made  by  the  Fifth  Auditor  on  February  7,  1884,  beheving,  as 
they  substantially  stated,  that  all  indebtedness  arising  under  said  Act  of 
April  25,  1857,  had  been  amply  provided  for  and  fully  adjusted  and  con- 
firmed by  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  on  February  8,  1884,  and 


31 

as  appended  as  my  Exhibit  No.  11,  to  my  report  in  the  direct  tax  claim 
hereinbefore  made,  and  to  which  reference  is  now  made. 

While  the  State  of  CaHfornia  did  not  receive  the  payment  of  this  claim 
in  cash,  yet  she  did  receive  full  credit  therefor  on  account  of  a  debt  unpaid, 
and  then  due  by  her  to  the  United  States,  and  as  herein  fully  set  forth,  so 
that  the  matter  was  as  broad  as  it  was  long,  in  so  far  as  California's  finan- 
cial relation  with  the  United  States  was  concerned;  but  I  beg  to  report 
that  the  total  sum  claimed  by  the  State  of  California,  as  due  her  as  a  State 
by  the  United  States,  was  allowed,  appropriated,  and  paid,  by  giving  her  a 
credit  for  the  fidl  amount  thereof;  and  which  adjustment,  so  made,  thus 
finally  terminated  this  particular  claim,  collected  by  me  under  the  author- 
ity conferred  by  Honorable  George  C.  Perkins,  as  Governor  of  California, 
and  duly  ratified  by  the  Legislature  of  California,  on  the  third  day  of 
March,  1883,  as  aforesaid. 

It  may  be  information  to  you  to  know  that  Congress,  also,  at  that  same 
time,  by  virtue  of  my  efforts  therein  exercised  in  their  behalf,  under  this 
same  authority  conferred  upon  me  by  Governor  Perkins  and  the  LegislaT 
ture  of  California,  made  ample  provision  for  the  reimbursement  of  the  pay- 
ment of  certain  specific  claims  of  sundry  citizens,  then  living  in  Modoc 
and  Siskiyou  Counties,  in  California,  and  aggregating  a  total  sum  of  $3,- 
945  61,  which  sum,  together  with  said  $495  72,  made  a  total  aggregate  of 
$4,441  33,  as  named  in  said  law. 

Some  of  these  allowances  so  provided  for  have  been  already  paid  to  the 
citizens  of  California  entitled  thereto,  while  others  remain  still  unpaid,  but 
all  of  which  will  be  paid  by  the  United  States  whenever  the  beneficiaries 
of  that  legislation,  if  living,  or  their  heirs  if  dead,  shall  duly  present  their 
claims  and  make  their  identity  legally  known  to  the  proper  accounting 
officers  of  the  Treasury,  at  Washington  City. 

And  all  of  which  is  now  very  respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  State  of  California. 


No.  4.    CALIFORNIA  INDIAN  WAR  CLAIMS. 

The  examinations  which  I  had  made,  and  especially  those  made  in  1881 
and  1882,  in  connection  with  the  Modoc  Indian  war  claims  arising  in 
California  and  Oregon,  in  1872  and  1873,  brought  me  in  contact  with  the 
general  subject-matter  of  other  California  Indian  and  other  war  claims, 
some  of  which,  by  the  United  States,  had  been  settled  in  full,  some  settled 
only  in  part,  and  some  not  settled  at  all.  I  had  already  had  a  limited 
experience  before  the  California  Legislature  in  1872,  1874,  and  1876,  as 
attorney  in  behalf  of  the  holders  of  certain  California  Indian  war  bonds 
and  coupons,  theretofore  issued  by  her  in  payment  of  certain  expenses 
that  had  been  incurred  therein,  on  account  of  Indian  hostilities,  and  suffi- 
cient to  convince  me  that  the  State  of  California — improperly,  as  I  thought 
then,  and  think  now — was  in  no  mood  to  either  pay  or  to  recognize  said 
claims. 

Believing,  therefore,  in  1882,  that  the  true,  if  not  the  only  remedy  of  the 
State  of  California,  and  that  left  to  those  of  her  citizens  who  still  held  any 
valid  evidences  of  these  unpaid  debts  growing  out  of  Indian  and  other 
hostilities  in  the  State  of  California,  and  upon  the  borders  thereof,  lay  in 
presenting  the  same  fully  and  intelligently  before  the  proper  United  States 
authorities  at  Washington  City,  I,  in  June,  1882,  duly  brought  this  entire 


32 

subject-matter  to  the  official  attention  of  her  then  Governor,  Hon.  George 
C.  Perkins,  who,  after  having  maturely  considered  the  same,  authorized  me 
to  represent  the  interests  of  the  State  of  California  in  all  these  premises; 
and  in  a  commission,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  annexed  and  made  a  part 
hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  1,  and  which  appointment  so  made,  the 
Legislature  of  California,  by  its  action  had  thereon  third  March,  1883, 
duly  validated,  ratified,  and  confirmed,  and  did  therein  fix  the  compensa- 
tion that  I  should  receive  in  these  premises  if  successful;  and,  as  will  fully 
appear  in  copy  of  said  action,  and  which  has  been  heretofore  filed  by  me 
as  my  Exhibit  No.  21,  in  my  report  on  the  five  per  cent  claim,  and  to  all 
of  which  reference  is  now  made. 

No  one,  in  my  opinion,  knew  better  than  Governor  George  C.  Perkins  of 
the  many  efforts  that  had  been  made  prior  to  1882  to  secure  recognition, 
adjustment,  and  full  payment  of  all  these  old  California  Indian  war 
claims;  and  he  also  knew  that  most  of  the  eff'orts  that  has  theretofore 
been  made  in  regard  thereto,  and  for  the  adjustment  thereof,  either  before 
the  Legislature  of  California  or  before  the  United  States  authorities,  had 
resulted  in  signal  failures;  and  he  also  knew,  as  every  intelligent  man 
must  know,  that  the  longer  any  settlement  looking  towards  the  payment 
of  these  old  claims  was  delayed,  that  the  chances  for  success  therein 
would  diminish,  and  grow  more  and  more  doubtful  year  by  year,  and  prob- 
ably in  the  end  fail  in  toto. 

Governor  Perkins,  when  a  State  Senator  from  Butte  County  in  the  Leg- 
islature of  the  State  of  California  in  1872  (and  before  which  Legislature 
and  its  proper  committees  I  had  appeared  as  attorney  to  represent  certain 
claimants  holding  certain  valid  evidences  of  this  old  California  Indian  war 
debt,  then  and  now  unpaid  and  due  said  holders  by  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia), was  made  the  Chairman  of  a  joint  committee  of  the  Senate  and 
House  that  had  been  created  by  the  Legislature  of  that  year  to  examine 
into  and  report  upon  the  general  subject  of  the  California  Indian  war 
indebtedness  as  the  same  existed  in  1872. 

This  joint  committee  made  their  full  report  to  the  Legislature  on  the 
twenty-first  of  February,  1872,  copy  of  which  report  is  hereto  attached  and 
made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  2. 

A  bill  in  harmony  with,  and  to  carry  out  the  recommendations  contained 
in  this  report,  was  thereupon  framed,  and  which  bill  passed  the  California 
Senate  in  1872,  but  failed  to  pass  the  California  Assembly.  Thereafter 
other  strenuous  efforts  made  at  the  meetings  of  subsequent  Legislatures  to 
secure  favorable  action  on  this  subject-matter  had  also  all  proved  equally 
abortive  and  equally  barren  in  favorable  results. 

I  do  not  know  in  fact  of  any  one  subject-matter  that  has  ever  been 
brought  so  constantly,  or  pressed  so  frequently  or  so  vigorously  before  the 
attention  of  the  Legislature  of  California,  or  for  so  long  a  period  of  time — 
for  this  has  been  done  certainly  from  1852  to  1878 — as  this  one  subject 
of  the  indebtedness  created  by  the  State  of  California  growing  out  of  its 
Indian  hostilities  in  early  years,  and  as  a  reference  to  the  messages  of  the 
several  Governors  of  California  will  attest,  and  as  the  various  resolutions 
passed  by  her  Legislature,  and  reports  of  her  State  officers,  will  fully  con- 
firm. Extracts  from  some  of  these  messages,  and  resolutions,  and  reports^ 
are  hereto  attached  and  made  parts  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  3. 

A  perusal  of  these  last  exhibits  will  serve  to  show,  in  part  at  least,  the 
very  unsatisfactory  condition  of  the  several  branches  of  this  claim  of  the 
State  of  California  against  the  United  States  at  the  date  when  I  took 
charge  of  these  California  Indian  war  claims.  It  appears  that  California, 
when  not  paying  sundry  of  these  claims  in  cash,  as  she  did,  made  ample 


33 

provision  for  their  -altimate  payment  by  the  issuance  of  interest-bearing 
bonds,  and  which  were  paid  to  individual  claimants  in  full  satisfaction  of 
their  claims  against  the  State  of  California,  and  as  provided  for  in  the  Acts 
of  her  Legislature,  approved  February  15,  1851,  May  3,  1852,  and  also  by 
the  issuance  of  certain  of  non-interest  bearing  bonds,  as  provided  for  in  the 
Act  of  the  Legislature,  approved  April  25,  1857,  and  in  Acts  amendatory 
thereof  and  supplemental  thereto. 

Up  to  this  date  there  are  still  afloat  in  the  hands  of  bona  fide  holders  and 
of  the  officers  of  the  State  of  California  (which  last,  though  paid  by  the 
State  of  California,  have  not  yet  been  paid  by  the  United  States),  claims 
aggregating  several  thousands  of  dollars  arising  under  each  of  the  aforesaid 
Acts  of  February  15,  1851,  May  3,  1852,  and  April  25,  1857. 

Strange  as  it  may  appear,  yet  the  fact  is,  that  while  the  aforesaid  joint 
committee  of  the  Legislature  of  1872  had  been  appointed  to  report  upon 
the  full  history  and  total  amount  of  all  the  then  unpaid  and  outstanding 
indebtedness  arising  on  account  of  Indian  hostilities  in  California  and 
upon  the  borders  thereof,  yet  that  joint  committee,  so  well  composed  as  it 
was,  with  the  Hon.  George  C.  Perkins  as  its  Chairman,  made  no  reference 
whatsoever  to  any  of  the  indebtedness  which  was  then  outstanding  and 
unpaid,  and  which  arose  under  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  approved  April 
25,  1857,  and  Acts  amendatory  thereof  and  supplemental  thereto,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  confined  their  said  report  exclusively  to  so  much  of  said  out- 
standing and  unpaid  indebtedness  as  arose  under  the  Acts  of  January  15, 
1851,  and  May  3,  1852,  only,  and  not  otherwise. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that,  as  my  labors  in  the  past  have  been,  and  those 
in  the  future  will  be,  directed  to  matters  arising  under  all  of  said  Acts,  so 
too  my  report  therefore  will  include  a  proper  reference  to  all  proceedings 
had  under  each  and  all  thereof,  as  well  as  to  those  arising  under  such  other 
and  different  special  Acts  and  resolutions  of  the  Legislature  of  California 
as  have  taken  place  therein  between  September  9,  1850,  and  the  first  of 
November,  1886,  the  date  of  this  report. 

In  my  efforts  in  1881,  as  State  Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  States  of  Ore- 
gon and  Nevada,  it  became  necessary  for  me  to  secure  for  them  appropriate 
legislation,  by  means  of-  which  they  could  be  reimbursed  for  the  expenses 
by  them  incurred,  respectively,  on  account  of  the  war  of  the  rebellion;  and 
which  legislation  had  been  made  necessary  by  wtue  of  the  provision  con- 
tained in  Section  No.  3489  of  the  United  States  Revised  Statutes,  and  which 
is  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Section  3489.  No  claims  against  the  United  States  for  collecting,  drilling,  or  organizing  vol- 
unteers for  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  shall  be  audited  or  paid  unless  presented  before  the  thirtieth 
day  of  June,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-four.  No  claims  for  horses  lost  prior  to  the  first  day 
of  January,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-two,  shall  be  audited  or  paid  unless  presented  before 
the  thirtieth  day  of  June,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-four. 

The  States  of  Oregon  and  Nevada  had  permitted  the  thirtieth  of  June, 
1874,  to  come  and  go  without  having  presented  to  or  filed  with  the  proper 
United  States  authorities  as  Washington,  D.  C,  under  the  Act  of  Congress 
approved  July  27, 1861,  any  claim  against  the  United  States  for  the  expend- 
iture of  money  by  them  incurred  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion  (United 
States  Statutes,  volume  12,  page  276).  At  my  request,  therefore,  and  in 
view  of  the  provisions  of  said  Section  No.  3489  of  the  United  States  Revised 
Statutes,  on  December  12,  1881,  Senator  Grover  of  Oregon  introduced  in 
the  Senate,  Senate  Joint  Resolution  No.  10  for  Oregon,  and  on  December 
13,  1881,  Senator  Fair  of  Nevada  also  introduced  Senate  Joint  Resolution 
No.  13  for  Nevada,  and  both  of  which  joint  resolutions  were  referred  to 


34 

the  Senate  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  of  which  Senator  Grover  was 
then  a  member,  and  he,  on  May  12,  1882,  reported  back  to  the  Senate  a 
bill,  to  wit.  Senate  Bill  No.  1673,  as  a  substitute  for  both  of  said  two  reso- 
lutions, and  which  bill  had  for  its  object,  among  other  things,  to  provide 
for  the  examination,  audit,  and  report  to  Congress  of  the  expenses  of  said 
two  States  arising  therein  between  fifteenth  April,  1861,  and  date  of  the 
passage  thereof,  copy  of  which  Bill  No.  1673  and  of  his  Report  No.  575, 
made  thereon  May  12,  1882,  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
and  marked  Exhibits  No.  4  and  No.  5. 

Having  discovered  that  the  State  of  California  was  in  no  better  or  dif- 
ferent position  in  regard  to  her  rebellion  war  claims  than  the  States  of  Oregon 
and  Nevada,  I,  therefore,  brought  the  same  to  the  attention  of  the  late 
Senator,  Hon.  John  F.  Miller  of  California,  and  who,  on  June  8,  1882, 
submitted  an  amendment  to  Senator  Grover's  said  Senate  Bill  No.  1673,  so 
as  to  include  California.  Other  amendments  having  been  made  in  the 
Senate  to  this  Senate  Bill  No.  1673,  and  such  as  should  include  the  States 
of  Colorado  and  Nebraska,  said  bill  passed  the  Senate  on  the  eighth  day 
of  June,  1882,  and  went  to  the  House,  where  it  was  still  further  amended  so 
as  to  include  the  State  of  Kansas,  and  so  amended,  it  passed  the  House  on 
June  20,  1882,  and  went  back  to  the  Senate,  where  upon  the  motion  of 
Senator  Maxey  of  Texas,  said  House  amendments  were  concurred  in  on 
the  same  date,  June  20,  1882,  and  said  Senate  Bill  No.  1673  became  a  law 
by  the  approval  of  the  President,  on  June  27,  1882,  copy  of  which  law  is 
hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  6. 

This  law  was  broad  enough  to  cover  not  only  certain  Indian  war  claims 
of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada,  but  also  those  arising  in  each  thereof 
during  the  late  war  of  the  rebellion,  and  under  this  law  I  have  heretofore 
filed  the  rebellion  war  claims,  and  Indian  war  claims,  for  the  States  of 
Oregon  and  Nevada,  and  certain  Indian  war  claims  and  also  the  rebellion 
war  claims  of  the  State  of  California  (but  as  to  the  latter,  California's 
rebellion  war  claims,  a  full  reference  and  report  thereon  will  hereinafter 
appear  in  a  separate  paper). 

In  order  to  present  to  the  United  States  authorities  in  proper  form,  all 
the  evidences  of  all  the  expenses  that  had  been  incurred  b}^  the  State  of 
California  on  account  of  the  Indian  hostilities  that  had  occurred  therein, 
and  for  which  provision  had  been  made  by  the  passage  of  this  Act  of  June 
27,  1882,  it  has  been  necessary  for  me  to  make  annually  a  trip  from  Wash- 
ington City  to  Sacramento,  California,  from  1882  to  1886,  inclusive,  and 
to  there  remain  several  weeks  each  time,  in  studying  into  the  history  of 
the  legislation  that  has  been  heretofore  had  in  regard  to  this  subject  by  the 
State  of  California;  and  in  examining  into  many  thousands  of  papers  and 
various  records  and  books  in  the  offices  of  the  Governor,  Controller, 
Treasurer,  Secretary  of  State,  and  Adjutant-General;  also  to  have  made 
certified  copies  of  such  books,  records,  and  other  archives,  which  originals 
could  not  be  spared  from  said  offices,  or  being  not  of  the  classes  I  had  been 
authorized  by  the  Legislature  to  receipt  for  and  use,  when  pressing  said 
claims  before  the  United  States  authorities,  and  such  as  were,  in  my  judg- 
ment, necessary  to  have  daily  at  hand  in  my  office  at  Washington,  for  an 
intelligent  presentation  of  these  claims  to  said  United  States  authorities. 

These  certified  copies  of  said  books,  records,  archives,  and  sundry  papers 
have  all  been  paid  for  at  my  own  expense,  aggregating  quite  a  large  sum,  and 
made  without  any  cost  whatsover  to  the  State  of  California,  and  because  the 
terms  of  the  contract  made  with  me  by  the  Legislature  of  California  pro- 
vided, that,  whereas  my  fee  was  to  be  entirely  contingent,  and  to  be  paid 
only  in  the  event  of  my  success;  that  the  State  of  California  under  no  cir- 


35 

cumstances  should  incur  any  expenses  of  any  kind  on  account  of  this  or  of 
any  of  these  other  several  claims;  so  that  if  the  ^tate'of  California  in  the 
end  failed  to  secure  any  recognition  and  payment  for  any  of  these  several 
claims,  she  would  not  be  at  any  expense  in  the  premises,  and  all  of  which 
expense  devolved  upon  me  to  meet  and  pay,  and  all  of  which  I  have  done. 

The  examinations  by  me  made  into  these  several  claims,  soon  disclosed 
the  fact  that  said  Act  of  Congress,  approved  June  27,  1882,  while  ample  to 
meet  California's  rebellion  claims,  was  not  adequate  to  meet  fully  all  her 
Indian  war  claims,  and  because  outside  of  the  claims  for  the  war  of  the 
rebellion,  most  of  the  war  claims  in  California  had  arisen  prior  to  fifteenth 
April,  1861,  and  for  those  Indian  war  claims  arising  prior  to  fifteenth  April, 
1861,  said  Act  failed  to  made  any  provision,  as  said  Act,  by  its  own  terms, 
was  declared  by  the  United  States  authorities  to  be  limited  exclusively  to 
those  claims  that  had  arisen  in  California  subsequent,  and  not  prior  to 
fifteenth  April,  1861. 

This  condition  of  things  I  thereupon  made  known  to  your  office  by 
appropriate  reports,  whereupon  you  conferred  upon  me  your  authority  to 
represent  among  other  things,  such  of  these  California  claims  as  might  not 
have  been  covered  by  or  included  in  any  prior  appointment  (copy  of  said 
authority  is  hereto  appended,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  7),  and  which 
appointment  so  made,  the  Legislature  of  California,  on  the  third  of  March, 
1885,  duly  validated,  ratified,  and  confirmed  in  Senate  Concurrent  Reso- 
lution No.  3,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  appended  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
and  marked  Exhibit  No.  8. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  meet  this  new  condition  of  things,  I  prepared  an 
appropriate  resolution,  and  presented  the  same  to  Hon.  W.  S.  Rosecrans, 
then  in  Congress  from  California,  who  at  my  request,  introduced  the  same 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  twenty-fifth  day  of  February,  1884, 
and  which  was  referred  to  the  House  Committee  on  Military  Aff'airs,  and 
of  which  he  was  then  Chairman.  I  thereafter  prepared  an  argument  in 
support  of  said  resolution,  and  submitted  the  same  to  the  House  Committee 
on  Military  Affairs,  whereupon  the  matter  was  favorably  reported  upon 
from  said  committee  on  March  18,  1884,  copy  of  which  resolution  and 
Report  No.  807,  made  thereon,  are  hereto  attached  and  made  parts  hereof, 
and  marked  respectively  Exhibits  Nos.  9  and  10. 

The  phraseology  of  said  resolution  was  slightly  changed  by  said  com- 
mittee, and  for  reasons  set  forth  in  a  letter  to  me  from  General  W.  S. 
Rosecrans,  of  January  21,  1885,  original  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and 
made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  11. 

An  examination  of  said  Report  No.  807  will  show  that  said  committee 
fully  used  my  said  argument  as  their  appendix  "  B "  in  support  of  said 
resolution. 

While  urging  this  view  of  the  case,  I  also  prepared  sundry  other  separate 
and  independent  bills  to  meet  these  same  California  Indian  war  claims, 
and  at  my  request  the  same  were  duly  introduced  in  the  House  and  Senate, 
and  as  follows,  to  wit: 

H.  R.  No.  50,  by  Hon.  W.  S.  Rosecrans,  December  10,  1883. 

H.  R.  No.  69,  by  Hon.  W.  S.  Rosecrans,  December  10,  1883. 

H.  R.  No.  6099,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  March  24,  1884. 

H.  R.  No.  6669,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  April  21,  1884. 

H.  R.  No.  7975,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  January  19,  1885. 

H.  R.  No.  8149,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  February  2,  1885. 

Senate  Bill  No.  809,  by  Hon.  John  F.  Miller,  December  19,  1883. 

Senate  Bill  No.  811,  by  Hon.  John  F.  Miller,  December  19,  1883. 

Senate  Bill  No.  1917,  by  Hon.  John  F.  Miller,  March  24,  1884. 


36 

Senate  Bill  No.  1970,  by  Hon.  John  F.  Miller,'  April  1,  1884. 

Copies  of  which  are  hereto  appended  and  made  parts  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibit  No.  Hi 

In  support  of  these  sundry  bills,  I  prepared  and  filed  with  the  appropri- 
ate committees  in  both  Senate  and  House,  and  the  California  delegation 
in  Congress,  sundry  arguments,  copies  of  which  are  hereto  attached  and 
made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  12. 

Notwithstanding  frequent  and  often  importunate  efforts  on  my  part  to 
secure  action  on  some  of  the  bills  in  the  House,  and  particularly  by  the 
House  Committee  on  War  Claims,  to  which  most  of  the  same  had  been 
referred,  and  though  Mr.  Tully  of  California  was  a  member  of  the  House 
War  Claims  Committee,  I  was  unable  during  the  whole  of  the  Forty-eighth 
Congress  to  even  get  said  bills  considered.  It  is  true,  certain  days  were  fixed 
by  said  committee  at  which  it  was  agreed  to  hear  me  in  an  oral  argument 
thereon,  but  when  such  days  arrived  said  committee  could  not  and  did  not 
muster  a  quorum  of  its  members;  and  the  consequence  was  that  our  Cali- 
fornia Indian  war  claims,  no  adequate  provision  of  law  then  existing,  went 
by  the  board,  unacted  on  and  unconsidered  during  the  whole  of  the  Forty- 
eighth  Congress. 

In  this  dilemma,  I  made  the  effort  to  secure  a  recognition  of  at  least  a 
portion  thereof,  by  an  appropriate  amendment  therefor  to  one  of  the  appro- 
priation bills;  and  with  this  object  in  view,  I  prepared  an  amendment, 
supported  by  proper  correspondence,  and  which,  at  my  request,  was  intro- 
duced by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  and  duly  submitted  to  the  House  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a 
part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  13.  But  this  effort  bore  no  good 
fruit. 

In  the  Senate  the  aforesaid  Senate  bills  fared  no  better  fate.  Senator 
Miller's  Senate  Bill  No.  809  was  referred  to  Senate  Committee  on  Military 
Affairs,  and  after  sundry  correspondence  between  that  committee  and  the 
War  Department  that  bill  was  unfavorably  reported  upon,  and  as  will  fully 
appear  in  Senate  Miscellaneous  Document  No.  40,  and  Senate  Report  No. 
158,  first  session  Forty-eighth  Congress,  copies  of  which  are  hereto  attached 
and  made  a  part  hereof,  marked  Exhibit  No.  14. 

The  impossibility  of  holding  such  bills  in  the  Senate  after  adverse  action 
had  been  had  thereon,  is  fully  set  forth  in  a  letter  to  me  by  the  late  Senator 
Hon.  John  F.  Millar,  dated  April  2,  1884,  original  of  which  is  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  15. 

Not  set  back  by  this  unfavorable  action,  I  prepared  appropriate  amend- 
ments to  be  proposed  to  the  appropriation  bills  then  pending  in  the  Senate, 
and  at  my  request  the  same  were  presented  by  Hon.  Senators  Farley  and 
Miller,  copies  of  which  are  hereto  appended  and  made  parts  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibits  No.  16  and  No.  17,  respectively. 

Prior  to  this  date  and  in  order  to  fortify  myself  with  all  official  statistics 
needed  in  order  to  show  to  Congress  just  exactly  the  true  history  thereof, 
Hon.  James  T.  Farley  and  Hon.  C.  P.  Berry  of  California,  and  Hon.  James 
H.  Slater  of  Oregon,  at  my  special  request,  made  sundry  calls  upon  the 
Treasury  Department  in  regard  thereto,  and  copies  of  the  correspondence 
had  thereon  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibit  No.  18,  same  being: 

1.  Letter  of  Hon.  C.  P.  Berry  to  Third  Auditor,  of  December  23,  1882. 

2.  Reply  of  Third  Auditor  thereto,  of  January  3,  1883. 

3.  Letter  of  Hon.  Secretary  of  Treasury,  January  8,  1883,  with  a  state- 
ment of  Third  Auditor,  of  January  8,  1883. 


37 

4.  Letter  of  Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  Hon.  James  T.  Farley,  of 
January  15,  1881,  with  letter  of  Third  Auditor,  of  January  11, 1881. 

5.  Letter  of  Third  Auditor  to  Hon.  James  H.  Slater,  of  January  24, 1883. 

While  the  foregoing  was  being  done  in  Congress,  I  also  made,  two  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  efforts  before  the  Treasury  Department  to  secure  recog- 
nition of  at  least  a  portion  of  these  claims,  and  duly  submitted  the  same 
to  the  Third  Auditor  of  the  Treasury,  even  under  existing  laws;  and  with 
this  object  in  view  I  filed  with  that  officer  classified  abstracts  of  said 
claims,  and  supported  same  by  vouchers  in  tabulated  form  and  in  large 
bound  volumes,  copies  of  which  abstracts  are  too  large  to  now  appear  herein 
-as  exhibits  in  this  report,  but  which  I  now  file  in  your  office,  and  call  them 
my  Exhibit  No.  19  to  this  report. 

The  results  of  the  action  had  thereon  by  the  Third  Auditor  is  set  forth 
in  his  letters  to  me  of  eighteenth  August,  1885,  and  November  23,  1885, 
copies  of  which  are  hereto  attached  and  made  parts  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibits  No.  20  and  No.  21,  respectively. 

In  order  to  throw  official  light  upon  a  portion  of  these  claims,  and  in 
order  that  the  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  from  California 
should  cooperate  with  the  State  authorities  in  securing  such  legislation  by 
Congress  as  should  secure  their  favorable  recognition,  and  ultimately  their 
final  payment,  the  Legislature  of  California,  on  March  30,  1878,  adopted 
Assembly  Joint  Resolution  No.  73,  and  under  which  the  late  Hon.  W.  B.  C. 
Brown,  on  May  27, 1878,  as  Controller  of  the  State  of  California,  submitted 
to  Hon.  William  Irwin,  then  Governor  of  California,  an  official  report  upon 
these  California  Indian  war  claims,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and 
made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  22. 

It.  will  be  observed  that  the  late  Controller  Brown  limited  his  reports  to 
such  claims  and  outstanding  and  unpaid  indebtedness  as  had  arisen  under 
the  Acts  of  February  15,  1851,  and  May  3,  1852;  his  report  being  as  a 
matter  of  fact  more  silent  than  that  of  said  joint  committee  upon  such 
claims  as  had  arisen  under  the  Act  of  April  25,  1857,  and  Acts  amenda- 
tory thereof  and  supplemental  thereto.  An  impression  in  1872  and  in  1878, 
and  even  up  to  the  time  I  took  hold  of  these  claims,  seems  to  have  existed, 
that  all  indebtedness  arising  under  said  Act  of  April  25,  1857,  and  Acts 
supplemental  thereto  and  amendatory  thereof,  had  been  all  fully  adjusted, 
which  is  not  the  fact. 

Having  thus  exhausted  every  proper  effort  for  both  an  executive  and 
legislative  remedy  in  these  premises  during  the  Forty-eighth  Congress,  I 
thereupon,  to  wit,  on  January  20,  1885,  submitted  to  you  a  report  in  writing, 
-accompanied  with  a  printed  statement,  that  related  exclusively  to  the  cases 
that  then  existed  under  the  aforesaid  Acts  of  February  15,  1851,  and  May 
3,  1852,  reserving  to  myself  the  intention  and  duty  to  report  to  you  at  a 
subsequent  date  and  in  another  report  such  claims  as  had  arisen  under 
other  Acts  of  the  Legislature  of  California. 

As  many  of  the  matters  by  me  presented  to  you  in  my  said  report  are 
important  to  be  known  in  connection  herewith,  I  now  append  hereto  a  copy 
of  said  report  and  make  the  same  a  part  hereof,  and  mark  it  Exhibit  No.  22. 

When  the  Forty-ninth  Congress  convened,  I  renewed  my  efforts  in  behalf 
of  these  same  measures  and  in  the  manner  following,  to  wit: 

I  prepared,  and  at  my  request  there  were  introduced  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  as  follows,  to  wit: 

H.  R.  No.  153,  December  21,  1885,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley  of  Cahfornia. 

H.  R.  No.  155,  December  21,  1885,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley  of  California. 

H.  R.  No.  5566,  February  15, 1886,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley  of  California. 

H.  R.  No.  8732,  May  10,  1886,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley  of  California. 


38 

H.  R.  No.  8149,  February  2, 1885,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley  of  California. 

Copies  of  which  are  hereto  appended  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and 
marked  Exhibit  No.  23. 

In  support  of  these  bills  I  appeared  before  the  House  Committee  on  War 
Claims,  by  appointment  granted  me  therefor,  and  submitted  to  said  com- 
mittee an  oral  argument,  and  on  February  22,  1886,  I  further  submitted  a 
special  argument  in  writing  in  support  of  said  H.  R.  No.  5566,  copy  of  which 
is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  24. 

Whereupon  said  War  Claim  Committee,  on  twenty-third  March,  1886, 
submitted  to  the  House  a  favorable  report,  to  wit:  House  Report  No.  1298 
on  said  bill,  H.  R.  No.  5596,  copy  of  which  bill  as  amended  by  said  com- 
mittee, and  of  its  Report  No.  1298  made  thereon,  are  hereto  appended  and 
made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  25. 

It  will  be  observed  by  the  reading  of  said  report,  that  said  War  Claims 
Committee  recommended  that  California  be  granted  nearly  all  that  I  had 
claimed  in  her  behalf;  the  principal  exception  being  that  of  interest  on  the 
principal  she  had  borrowed  or  expended  in  these  premises,  and  as  I  was 
then  engaged  in  endeavoring  to  secure  for  California  such  interest  as  she 
had  actually  paid  out  on  all  of  her  war  claim  expenditures,  and  in  a  sep- 
arate and  independent  bill  (a  report  upon  all  of  which  will  hereinafter 
more  fully  appear),  I  deemed  it  wise  not  to  antagonize  that  particular 
recommendation  of  the  War  Claims  Committee,  but  to  await  the  proper 
time,  and  then  meet  the  same  whenever  said  separate  bill  for  interest 
should  be  under  consideration  in  either  the  Senate  or  in  the  House,  and  in 
the  meanwhile  to  accept  this  action  of  the  War  Claims  Committee,  which 
at  that  time  seemed  to  me  to  be  the  very  best  that  I  could  secure  at  its 
hands. 

While  thus  engaged  in  securing  from  Congress  by  appropriate  and 
separate  bills  the  most  favorable  report  possible  in  behalf  of  these  meas- 
ures, I  framed  sundry  letters  of  inquiry,  which,  at  my  solicitation,  the  Hon. 
Barclay  Henley  addressed  to  the  proper  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department, 
replies  to  which,  under  date  of  March  20,  1886,  from  Third  Auditor,  and 
June  22,  and  July  2,  1886,  from  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
are  hereto  attached  and  made  parts  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  26. 

Having  thus  secured  a  favorable  report  on  the  aforesaid  H.  R.  No.  5566, 
and  having  also,  and  that,  too,  in  an  official  form,  been  put  in  possession  of 
such  authentic  information  regarding  some  of  these  claims  as  might  be 
appropriately  used  by  the  House  Committee  on  Appropriations  if  it  were 
disposed  to  use  the  same,  I  thereupon  framed  sundry  communications  of 
request,  which,  at  my  solicitation,  the  Hon.  Barclay  Henley  addressed  to 
the  Hon.  Samuel  I.  Randall,  Chairman  of  said  committee,  the  intention 
thereof  being  to  secure,  by  a  proper  amendment  to  the  appropriation  bills, 
provision  to  cover  some  of  these  claims,  copies  of  which  communications  are 
hereto  appended  and  made  parts  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  26^. 

Failing  to  secure  by  this  proceeding  at  the  hands  of  said  committee  in 
the  House  that  favorable  recognition  of  these  measures  which  I  thought 
they  were  then  justly  entitled  to  receive,  I  thereafter  renewed  the  same  by 
similar  efforts  in  the  Senate,  where,  at  my  request.  Senator  Stanford,  on 
sixth  of  April,  1886,  submitted  to  the  Senate  Indian  Appropriation  Bill  H. 
R.  No.  5543,  an  amendment  having  this  same  object  in  view,  copy  of 
which  is  hereto  appended  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit 
No.  27. 

At  my  request  also,  Senator  Hearst  submitted  to  the  Deficiency  Appro- 
priation Bill  H.  R.  No.  9726,  an  amendment  also  having  this  same  object 
in  view,  copy  of  which  amendment,  together  with  a  printed  statement  pre- 


39 

pared  by  me  in  support  of  said  amendment  so  proposed  by  Senator  Hearst, 
is  hereto  appended  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  28. 

These  efforts  of  mine  in  the  Senate  proved  to  be  as  barren  of  favorable 
results  as  had  attended  my  similar  efforts  in  the  House,  so  that  the  first 
session  of  the  forty-ninth  Congress  adjourned,  leaving  the  legislation  pre- 
pared and  proposed  to  adjust  these  claims,  and  in  the  manner  herein  out- 
lined, in  an  unfinished  state.  Progress,  however,  more  than  had  ever 
before  been  made  in  regard  thereto  had  been  secured,  and  because  the  pro- 
visions contained  in  H.  R.  No.  5566  vests  in  the  proper  United  States 
authorities  power  to  examine,  and  audit,  and  pay  all  Indian  war  claims 
arising  in  the  State  of  California  and  upon  the  borders  thereof  (including 
the  redemption  of  certain  California  Indian  war  bonds),  between  Septem- 
ber 9,  1850 — date,  of  the  admission  of  California  in  the  Union — to  April  15, 
1861,  on  which  last  named  date  the  Act  of  June  27,  1882,  would  take  up 
the  remainder  of  such  claims,  to  wit,  those  arising  between  April  15, 1861, 
and  June  27,  1882,  so  that  by  these  two  Acts  taken  jointly,  California 
would  have  ample  authority  of  law  under  and  by  which  to  have,  in  time, 
duly  examined  and  audited  and  paid  all  claims  arising  therein  and  upon 
the  borders  thereof  between  September  9,  1850,  and  June  27,  1882,  and 
whether  the  same  included  Indian  war  claims  or  claims  arising  during  the 
war  of  the  rebellion,  and  which  she  has  heretofore  paid. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing,  and  in  order  that  the  State  of  California 
should  be  fully  reimbursed  for  expenses  by  her  incurred  for  the  payment 
of  certain  Indian  depredation  claims,  and  in  order  that  her  citizens  also 
might  be  fully  reimbursed  for  expenses  and  losses  of  property  by  them 
incurred  on  account  of  various  Indian  depredations  in  California,  and  for 
which,  as  the  several  exhibits  submitted  herewith  fully  show,  the  Legisla- 
ture has  so  often  besought  Congress  to  enact  adequate  legislation,  in  order 
that  same  be  paid,  and  all  of  which  efforts  had  up  to  this  time  proved  fruitless, 
I  prepared  three  bills,  which  at  my  request  were  introduced  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley  of  California,  to  wit,  H.  R. 
No.  5209,  on  February  8,  1886,  and  H.  R.  No.  8080,  and  H.  R.  No.  8082,  on 
April  19,  1886.  Similar  bills  were  also  at  my  request  introduced  in  the 
Senate  by  Senator  Dolph  of  Oregon,  and  supported  by  an  argument,  the 
statistics  of  which  were  prepared  by  my  associates,  Messrs.  Charles  and 
William  B.  King,  and  myself. 

After  various  efforts  to  secure  action  on  these  House  bills  by  the  House 
Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  to  which  the  same  were  referred,  that  com- 
mittee granted  Messrs.  King  and  myself  several  audiences,  where  and 
when  we  submitted  sundry  oral  arguments.  That  committee  favorably 
reported  a  substitute  for  all  of  said  bills  and  sundry  others,  all  relating  to 
the  same  subject,  to  wit,  H.  R.  9729,  on  the  thirtieth  June,  1886,  with  a 
favorable  report,  to  wit.  House  Report  No.  3117.  Copies  of  all  of  which 
are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  29. 
^  No  action  was  taken  on  this  measure  in  the  Senate.  It  is  therefore  my 
high  privilege  to  be  enabled  to  report  to  you,  that  for  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  Congressional  legislation  has  any  committee  of  either  the  House  of 
Representatives  or  of  the  Senate  ever  recommended  the  passage  by  Congress  of 
a  general  bill  to  meet  and  pay  for  losses  sustained  on  account  of  Indian  dep- 
redations throughout  the  United  States. 

My  own  judgment  ever  has  been,  and  now  is,  that  the  only  proper  way 
to  secure  relief  for  the  State  of  California,  and  for  those  of  her  citizens  who 
have  sustained  losses  in  this  class  of  cases,  was,  not  by  a  special,  but  by  a 
general  bill,  and  for  this  reason,  in  this  case,  and  in  sundry  other  claims 


40 

in  which  Cahfornia  had  an  interest  in  common  with  the  other  States,  I 
thought  the  proper  proceeding  to  be  had  was  by  general  legislation. 

In  conclusion,  I  beg  to  report  to  you  that  I  feel  quite  confident  that  in 
due  time  all  California  Indian  war  claims  will  receive  full  attention  at  the 
hands  of  the  proper  United  States  authorities,  and  wherefore  I  shall  here- 
after renew  my  efforts  in  behalf  of  these  several  measures,  knowing,  as  I  do, 
that  the  main  work  in  these  premises  has  already  been  done  by  me,  and 
which  work,  in  due  time,  must,  in  my  opinion,  eventuate  in  giving  the 
State  of  California  all  proper  benefits  of  these  equitable  claims,  when  the 
proceeds  arising  therefrom  can  be  expended  for  such  purposes  as  the 
Legislature  of  California  may  hereafter  wisely  determine. 

All  of  which  is  now  very  respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 

Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  State  of  California. 


No.  5.     REBELLION  WAR  CLAIMS. 

My  examination  into  the  general  subject-matter  of  the  rebellion  war 
claims  of  the  States  of  Oregon  and  Nevada,  whose  agent  and  counsel  I  for 
several  years  last  past  have  been  and  still  am,  brought  me  naturally  in 
contact  with  similar  matters  arising  in  the  State  of  California. 

Prior  to  November  27, 1879,  not  knowing  that  any  appointment  had  been 
made  by  any  officer,  or  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California,  to  rep- 
resent these  California  rebellion  claims,  I  wrote  to  Hon.  William  Irwin  in 
relation  thereto,  and  in  reply  he  told  me  he  would  consult  with  the  Attor- 
ney-General (then  Hon.  Jo  Hamilton)  in  regard  thereto. 

A  long  time  elapsing,  and  not  hearing  further  from  either  Governor 
Irwin  or  from  Attorney-General  Hamilton  in  regard  thereto,  on  November 
27,  1879,  I  wrote  to  Hon.  James  A.  Johnson,  then  lieutenant-Governor  of 
California,  and  requested  him  to  see  Attorney-General  Hamilton  in  my 
behalf  in  regard  thereto.  To  this  letter  Hon.  James  A.  Johnson  replied 
on  December  2,  1879,  in  a  letter,  original  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and 
made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  1. 

Following  up  the  information  contained  in  said  letter,  I  had  knowledge 
for  the  first  time  that  the  Legislature  of  California  had,  on  March  1,  1872, 
by  Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  36  (California  Statutes  1871-1872, 
page  958),  made  provision  for  the  presentation. to  the  proper  United  States 
authorities  at  Washington  of  its  rebellion  war  claims;  and  by  it  I  also 
learned,  that  though  seven  years  had  come  and  gone,  there  had  not  been 
any  presentation  of  said  claims,  or  anything  done  in  regard  to  same  up  to 
twenty-sixth  February,  1881,  when  the  Legislature  of  California  passed  a 
second,  to  wit.  Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  12,  in  regard  thereto 
(California  Statutes  1881,  page  100),  copies  of  which  resolutions  and  of 
the  action  had  thereunder  by  Hon.  Newton  Booth  and  Hon.  George  C. 
Perkins,  when  Governors  of  California,  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part 
hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  2. 

Thereafter  the  provisions  of  Section  No.  3489,  U.  S.  Revised  Statutes, 
came  to  my  knowledge,  and  wherein  it  was  provided  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Section  No.  3489.  No  claims  against  the  United  States  for  collecting,  drilling,  or  organ- 
izing volunteers  for  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  shall  be  audited  or  paid  unless  presented 
before  the  thirtieth  day  of  June,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-four.  No  claims  for  horses 
lost  prior  to  the  first  day  of  January,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-two,  shall  be  audited 
or  paid  unless  presented  before  the  thirtieth  day  of  June,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy- 
four. 


41 

In  view  of  the  matters  therein  contained,  I  brought  this  subject-matter 
to  the  attention  of  the  late  Senator,  Hon.  John  F.  Miller,  and  who,  to  remedy 
this  matter,  in  so  far  as  California  was  concerned,  moved,  at  my  request, 
to  amend  Senator  Grover's  Oregon  and  Nevada  Rebellion  Claim  Bill  No. 
1673,  as  hereinbefore  reported,  by  inserting  "California,"  so  that  by  the 
passage  of  the  Act  of  Congress  of  June  27,  1882,  there  was  enacted  ample 
provision  of  law  by  which  all  of  California's  rebellion  war  claims  could 
thereafter  be  examined,  audited,  and  reported  by  the  proper  accounting 
officers  of  the  United  States  Treasury  to  Congress  for  final  payment. 

After  the  passage  of  said  Act  of  Congress  of  June  27, 1882,  under  arrange- 
ments made  between  Hon.  James  E.  Hale  and  Thomas  M.  Nosier  and 
myself,  I  was  placed  in  possession  of  all  the  papers,  vouchers,  and  docu- 
ments, and  evidences  in  support  of  portions  of  these  claims,  which  for  ten 
(10)  years  had  laid  in  Washington  City  boxed  up,  unacted  on,  unclassified, 
and  unexamined  for  any  purpose  whatsoever. 

Finding  these  claims  in  much  confusion,  and  that  many  thereof  were 
missing  and  many  links  of  valid  evidence  needed  to  properly  support  the 
same  for  presentation  to  the  United  States  authorities,  and  there  being  no 
evidence  of  payment  filed  with  any  thereof,  and  because  the  Controller's 
original  warrants  drawn  in  payment  thereof,  and  upon  which  in  nearly  all 
cases  are  indorsed  a  proper  receipt,  were  not  filed  with  any  of  these  claims^ 
I  thereupon  called  upon  State  Treasurer  January  to  surrender  to  me  such 
of  these  original  warrants  issued  in  payment  of  these  claims  as,  having 
been  paid  and  canceled,  were  then  on  file  in  his  office. 

The  chief  value  of  these  paid  and  canceled  warrants  at  that  time  was 
that  they  constituted  original  evidence  to  the  United  States  of  payment  by 
the  State,  and  should  have  been  surrendered  by  the  State  of  California  as 
so  many  sub-vouchers  to  support  her  claim  for  reimbursement  by  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  January,  however,  declined  to  accede  to  my  request,  and  refused  to 
surrender  to  me  or  to  my  duly  authorized  agent  any  of  said  paid  and  can- 
celed warrants  for  such  public  use. 

In  the  preparation,  classification,  and  abstracting  of  and  placing  with 
each  the  exact  evidence  that  pertained  thereto,  I  had  to  proceed,  therefore, 
without  such  original  warrants,  and  until  such  time  as  the  Legislature 
should  next  meet,  and  when  its  authority  for  the  delivery  to  me  of  all  such 
original  warrants,  and  of  any  other  original  papers  that  I  might  need  in  the 
proper  presentation  of  these  claims  would  be  invoked. 
.  This  matter  was  therefore  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Legislature  that 
convened  in  January,  1885,  and  that  body,  after  fully  considering  the  same, 
did  among  other  things,  duly  authorize  the  surrender  to  me  of  all  said 
original  warrants;  and  as  will  fully  appear  from  copy  of  its  action  had  in 
regard  thereto  on  March  3, 1885,  and  which  has  been  heretofore  filed  as  my 
Exhibit  No.  8,  in  my  report  on  "  California  Indian  War  Claims,^''  and  to  all 
of  which  reference  is  now  made. 

These  warrants  were  subsequently  got  together,  boxed,  and  sent  by 
express  to  me,  at  Washington  City,  at  my  expense.  Each  warrant  was 
thereafter  duly  placed  with  the  particular  claim  to  which  it  belonged,  and 
in  payment  of  which  it  had  been  issued  by  the  Controller  of  the  State  of 
California.  The  work  of  the  proper  classification,  and  abstracting,  etc.,  of 
all  the  evidences  in  support  of  this  rebellion  claim — involving,  as  it  did, 
the  handling  and  rehandling  and  careful  examination  of  over  100,000 
papers — has  had  my  attention,  with  the  aid  of  never  less  than  three  and 
sometimes  that  of  five  clerks,  continually  for  the  four  years  last  past.  I 
therefore  now  have  the  honor  to  report  to  you  that,  on  the  eighteenth  day 


42 

of  September,  1886,  I  duly  filed  all  the  papers,  vouchers,  warrants,  and 
other  evidences  in  support  of  the  rebellion  war  claims  of  the  State  of  Cal- 
ifornia with  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  whose  duty  it  is  also 
made  under  said  Act  of  June  27,  1882,  to  examine  and  report  upon  the 
whole  thereof.  (See  copy  of  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for 
September  18,  1886,  and  of  affidavit  therein  referred^  to,  and  made  a  part 
hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  9.) 

These  papers  occupy  eight  large  packing  boxes;  the  abstracts  thereof 
alone  comprise  bound  volumes,  and  which  abstracts  have  been  by  me  pre- 
pared on  heavy  sheets  of  paper,  eighteen  inches  by  twenty-three  inches, 
and  strongly  and  neatly  bound  in  separate  volumes;  and  all  this  too  has 
been  done  at  my  own  expense. 

Duplicates  of  these  several  abstracts  in  twenty-one  bound  volumes,  one 
each  for  Abstracts  A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  G,  H,  K,  L,  M,  N,  0,  and  three  of  P,  and 
five  of  Q,  have  also  been  made  by  me,  and  all  of  which  I  now  submit  you 
herewith,  and  which  volumes  will  constitute  a  permanent  record  in  the 
proper  State  office  in  evidence  of  at  least  a  part  of  the  work  that  has  been 
done  by  me  in  regard  to  these  claims,  and  which  possibly  may  prove  of 
some  value  as  books  of  reference  whenever  any  matter  in  regard  to  any  of 
these  claims  shall  hereafter  arise. 

No  injury  whatsoever  has  occurred  to  the  State  of  California  by  virtue  of 
any  delay  while  these  papers  were  in  my  custody  for  examination  and 
proper  preparation  prior  to  filing  the  same  with  the  proper  United  States 
authorities,  and  because  even  had  they  been  filed  prior  to  the  date  when 
they  were  actually  filed  by  me,  no  action  whatsoever  would  have  been  had 
thereon,  and  because  similar  rebellion  war  claims,  that  over  two  years  ago 
had  been  filed  by  me  for  the  States  of  Oregon  and  Nevada,  lay  unacted 
upon  in  the  War  Department;  and  because  of  the  allegation  by  Hon. 
Robert  T.  Lincoln,  Secretary  of  War,  that  the  aforesaid  Act  of  June  27, 
1882,  under  which  said  Oregon  and  Nevada  claims  were  to  be  examined, 
imposed  upon  the  War  Office  new  and  additional  duties,  without  at  the 
same  time  placing  at  his  disposal  new  or  additional  force  for  this  examina- 
tion, and  that  he  wanted  Congress  to  appropriate  the  sum  of  $25,000  to  aid 
him  to  do  this  work,  and  in  its  annual  estimates  in  1884  and  1886  the 
War  Department  made  a  call  for  this  $25,000  for  said  purposes. 

Learning,  therefore,  the  cause  of  the  non-action  in  the  War  Department 
on  these  claims,  I  called  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  Senator  Dolph  of 
Oregon,  who,  on  February  19, 1885,  submitted  an  amendment  to  the  Sundry 
Civil  Appropriation  Bill,  to  appropriate  said  $25,000  for  this  purpose,  but 
this  amendment  failed  to  secure  any  favorable  action  in  the  Senate. 

I  also  on  February  16,  1885,  brought  this  matter  to  the  attention  of 
Hon.  0.  Welborn  of  Texas,  in  a  communication,  copies  of  which  are  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  2^. 

Nothing  having  been  done  in  these  premises  during  the  Forty-eighth 
Congress,  the  matter  was  by  me  called  to  the  attention  of  Senator  Maxey 
of  Texas,  who,  as  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  when 
the  said  Act  of  June  27,  1882,  became  a  law,  had  taken  much  interest 
therein,  and  because  of  the  fact  that  Texas  was  one  of  the  States  named  in 
the  said  Act  of  June  27,  1882,  and  he  had  an  interview  with  the  Secretary 
of  War,  Mr.  Endicott;  whereupon  the  Secretary  of  War,  on  January  27, 
1886,  wrote  Senator  Maxey  a  letter,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto  appended 
and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  3;  whereupon  Senator 
Maxey,  on  the  twenty-ninth  of  January,  1886,  introduced  in  the  Senate  a 
bill  to  meet  this  special  want,  to  wit.  Senate  Bill  No.  1284,  copy  of  which 
is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  4. 


43 

No  action  having  been  taken* on  this  separate  Bill  No.  1284  of  Senator 
Maxey,  and,  appreciating  as  I  did  (probably  even  more  than  any  other 
one  person,  for  1  now  represented  three  of  the  States  named  in  said  Act  of 
June  27,  1882,  to  wit,  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada,  that  were  then  and  are 
now  interested  in  this  proposed  legislation)  the  importance  of  getting  some 
early  action  by  the  War  Department  in  these  premises,  I  again  brought 
this  matter  to  the  attention  of  Senator  Maxey,  who,  at  my  request,  on  the 
first  day  of  July,  1886,  introduced  an  amendment  to  the  Sundry  Civil 
Appropriation  Bill  (H.  R.  No.  9478)  to  appropriate  said  $25,000,  copy  of 
which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit 
No.  5. 

The  Senate  Committee  on  Appropriations  would  not  recommend  an 
appropriation  for  this  particular  sum,  but  did  recommend  an  appropria- 
tion for  this  purpose  of  $7,500,  but  which  sum  was,  on  July  24, 1886,  upon 
the  motion  of  Senator  Allison  of  Iowa,  increased  to  $10,000. 

When  this  particular  amendment  was  reached  in  the  Senate,  on  July 
24,  1886,  a  long  and  acrimonious  debate  was  had  thereon,  so  much  so  that 
even  said  appropriation  of  $10,000  came  very  near  being  lost,  and  as  will 
fully  appear  from  copy  of  said  proceedings  had  thereon  in  the  Senate,  on 
the  twenty-fourth  of  July,  1886,  hereto  appended  and  made  a  part 
hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  6. 

Having  discovered  in  the  examination  of  these  claims,  that  certain 
original  evidence  in  a  part  thereof  was  wanting,  and  all  of  which,  in  my 
judgment,  was  necessary  for  the  War  Department  to  have  and  in  order  to 
validly  support  the  same,  and  after  diligent  search  made  by  me  in  Sacra- 
mento, aided  by  Controller  John  P.  Dunn,  and  his  assistant,  J.  M.  O'Reilly, 
of  the  Controller's  office,  and  by  General  Geo.  Cosby,  and  his  son,  and  by 
his  assistant,  Colonel  Tobin,  and  by  two  State  Treasurers  and  their  assist- 
ants, and  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  having  failed  to  find  the  missing 
links  of  that  evidence  which  was  so  necessary  to  have  in  my  judgment, 
I  deemed  it  proper  to  secure  the  passage  of  a  law  by  Congress,  whereby 
we  could  use  such  secondary  evidence  as  might  be  available  in  these  prem- 
ises, and  a  bill  for  this  purpose  was  therefore  prepared  by  me,  and  at 
my  request  was  introduced  in  the  Senate,  on  December  13,  1883,  by  Sena- 
tor Jones  of  Nevada,  and  favorably  reported  upon  on  January  13,  1885, 
by  Senator  Dolph,  but  which  bill  failed  to  pass,  copies  of  which  bill.  No. 
656,  and  report  thereon.  No.  984,  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part 
hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  6|. 

Wherefore  I  renewed  my  efforts  in  the  same  direction  in  the  Forty-ninth 
Congress,  and  at  my  request.  Senator  Dolph  of  Oregon,  on  December  8, 
1885,  introduced  in  the  Senate,  Senate  Bill  No.  71,  and  which  was  favora- 
bly reported  upon  in  the  Senate  on  February  3,  1886,  and  favorably  reported 
upon  February  17,  1886,  in  the  House,  in  House  Report  No.  572,  and 
became  a  law  on  the  fourth  of  August,  1886.  Copies  of  which  bill  and  of 
said  law  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit 
No.  7. 

You  therefore  have  in  the  foregoing  synopsis,  a  history  of  a  portion  of 
my  efforts,  covering  a  long  period  of  time  and  accompanied  with  much 
labor  of  myself  and  of  my  assistants,  all  of  whose  services,  together  with 
the  expenses  necessarily  incident  to  the  preparation  in  proper  form  of  these 
claims,  have  been  all  met,  and  all  paid  for  exclusively  at  my  own  expense. 

Immediately  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  to  wit,  on  the  eighteenth 
of  September,  1886,  I  requested  the  honorable  Secretary  of  War,  in  writ- 
ing, to  create  the  Board  of  three  army  officers,  which  the  aforesaid  law 
vested  in  him  authority  to  do,  and  which  Board  was  ordered  on  October 


44 

6,  1886,  to  be  convened,  and  as  will  appeat  from  copy  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment Order  No.  282  issued  therein,  and  now  hereto  attached  and  made  a 
part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  8. 

When  said  Board  shall  have  examined  and  considered  the  claims  of  the 
State  of  California,  the  results  of  their  examination  from  time  to  time  I 
have  no  doubt  will  be  submitted  to  me,  and  my  further  action  thereon 
will  depend  upon  the  character  of  their  examination  by  said  Board,  and  a 
report  on  all  of  which  will  thereafter  be  submitted  by  me  to  your  office  for 
its  information,  and  that  of  the  Legislature  of  California,  and  of  such 
other  parties  as  may  be  interested  therein. 

All  of  which  is  now  very  respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 

Agent  and  Attorney  for  the  State  of  California. 


No.  6.    CLAIM    OF    INTEREST    EARNED    BY  THE    STATE    OP 
CALIFORNIA   ON   WAR   CLAIMS. 

My.  examination  into  the  subject-matter  of  the  several  war  claims  of 
the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada  disclosed  the  fact  that  said 
States  had  in  some  instances  been  compelled  to  borrow  money  with  which 
to  pay  cash  for  some  of  these  claims,  and  to  pay  interest  on  the  sums  so 
borrowed  and  so  paid  out  on  account  of  said  claims,  while  in  other  instances 
they  had  issued  interest-bearing  bonds. 

It  therefore  appeared  to  me  that  if  these  States  had  a  valid  claim  against 
the  United  States  for  the  reimbursement  to  them  of  the  principal  which 
they  had  respectively  expended  in  the  payment  of  those  expenses  which 
constituted  a  proper  charge  against  the  United  States,  that  these  same 
States  also  had  an  equally  valid  claim  against  the  United  States  for  the 
reimbursement  to  them  by  the  United  States  of  such  interest  as  they  had 
paid  out  when  compelled  to  go  into  the  money  markets  of  the  country  to 
borrow  money  with  which  to  pay  said  claims. 

This  proposition  appeared  to  me  to  be  both  logical  and  equitable,  and 
while  it  was  true  that  Congress,-  when  legislating  on  July  27,  1861,  to  reim- 
burse the  several  States  of  the  Union  for  such  expenses  as  by  them  had 
been  incurred  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  had  not  made  any  provision 
for  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  principal  therein  provided  for  in  the  event 
any  State  had  to  borrow  said  principal,  and  had  not  made  any  provision 
for  the  payment  of  interest  in  any  of  its  other  special  acts  that  related  to 
any  one  of  these  three  States  where  said  States  had  paid  interest,  yet  it 
appeared  to  me  that  it  was  in  all  respects  proper  for  me  to  endeavor  to 
secure  the  enactment  of  a  law  by  Congress  by  which  this  claim,  which 
existed  only  in  equity,  should  be  recognized  by  law. 

For  this  purpose  I  framed  two  special  bills  limited  in  their  provisions  to 
California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada,  one  of  which,  to  wit.  Senate  Bill  No.  320, 
at  my  request  the  late  Senator  Hon.  John  F.  Miller  introduced  in  the 
Senate  on  fifth  of  December,  1883,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and 
made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  1,  and  the  other,  to  wit,  H. 
R.  No.  109,  was  also  at  my  request  introduced  in  the  House  on  tenth 
December,  1883,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached 
and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  2. 

These  two  bills,  it  will  be  perceived,  covered  interest  for  two  classes  of 
claims: 

First — "Interest  upon  loans  or  money  borrowed  and  actually  expended 


45 

by  them  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States  during  the  late  war 
for  suppressing  insurrection  and  rehellionT 

Second — Interest  upon  loans  or  money  borrowed  and  actually  expended 
by  them  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States  on  account  of  Indian 
hostilities  in  said  States  and  Territories. 

After  these  two  bills  had  been  introduced  inthe  Forty-eighth  Congress,  I 
soon  discovered  that  while  there  were  a  number  of  eastern  members  in 
that  Congress  who  seemed  willing  to  reimburse  California,  Oregon,  and 
Nevada  for  interest  they  had  paid  out  on  account  of  the  war  of  the  "  rehel- 
lion^^^  yet  these  same  men  were  not  equally  willing  to  reimburse  these 
same  States  for  interest  where  the  same  had  been  by  them  paid  out  on 
account  of  ^^ Indian  hostilities.''^  In  view  thereof,  and  having  maturely 
considered  this  subject  from  many  points  of  view,  and  desiring  as  I  did, 
to  secure  favorable  action  upon  both  of  these  propositions,  and  to  avoid 
having  these  bills,  as  presented,  being  amended  by  leaving  intact  one, 
and  striking  out  the  other  of  said  two  provisions,  and  thereby  jeopardize 
in  the  future  the  success  of  the  one  so  stricken  out,  I  deemed  it  best  to 
proceed  in  two  separate  bills,  the  one  to  be  limited  to  interest  paid  out  on 
account  of  the  rebellion  war  claims,  and  the  other  on  account  of  Indian 
war  hostilities,  and  in  order  that  this  measure  for  the  payment  of  interest 
should  have  a  general  support,  I  deemed  it  wise  to  make  both  of  said  bills 
general  by  applying  to  all  States  and  Territories  alike. 

I  therefore  prepared  for  this  purpose  two  separate  and  independent  bills, 
one  of  which,  at  my  request,  to  wit,  H.  R.  No.  2930,  was  on  January  8, 1884, 
introduced  in  the  House,  limited  to  Indian  hostilities.,  and  a  similar  bill,  to 
wit,  H.  R.  No.  2463,  on  the  same  day,  limited  to  the  war  of  the  rebellion^  was, 
at  my  suggestion,  introduced,  and  both  referred  to  the  House  Committee 
on  War  Claims;  copies  of  which  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part 
hereof,  and  marked  Exhibits  Nos.  3  and  4. 

In  support  of  these  several  bills  I  prepared  and  had  printed  at  my  own 
expense  appropriate  arguments,  and  submitted  the  same  to  said  Committee 
on  War  Claims,  copies  of  which  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
and  marked  Exhibits  No.  5  and  No.  5^. 

At  the  same  time  I  prepared,  and  had  printed  and  submitted  to  each  of 
the  members  of  the  delegations  from  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada,  and 
of  said  committee,  a  circular  letter,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached,  and 
made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  6. 

This  War  Claims  Committee,  having  maturely  considered  the  subject- 
matter,  did  on  April  1,  1884,  make  a  favorable  report  thereon,  to  wit. 
Report  No.  1102,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached,  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
and  marked  Exhibit  No.  7. 

For  reasons  before  stated  I  thought  it  equally  wise  to  proceed  in  the  Sen- 
ate by  separate  bills,  but  deemed  it  prudent  not  to  have  any  action  taken 
in  the  Senate  until  after  the  House  had  acted  thereon.  As  soon  as  the  House 
War  Claims  Committee  made  its  said  report  on  April  1,  1884,  partly  at  my 
suggestion,  a  bill,  to  wit.  Senate  Bill  No.  2000  (similar  in  all  respects  to  H. 
R.  No.  2364)  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  on  April  5,  1884,  and  referred 
to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Claims,  and  which  committee,  on  May  28, 1884, 
favorably  reported  said  Senate  Bill  No.  2000  in  its  Senate  Report  No.  590, 
copies  of  which  bill  and  report  are  hereto  appended  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
and  marked  Exhibit  No.  8. 

In  view  of  what  had  then  already  taken  place  on  said  Senate  Bill  No. 
2000,  and  said  House  Bill  No.  2364,  I  deemed  it  proper  and  my  duty  to 
bring  the  same  to  the  attention  of  the  Legislature  of  California  at  its  next 


46 

session,  to  wit,  in  January,  1885,  and  for  this  purpose  I  submitted  a  report 
thereon  to  your  office. 

Thereafter  the  Legislature,  having  had  the  matter  under  its  consideration, 
did,  on  fifth  of  March,  1885,  pass  Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  25, 
copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibit  No.  8i  .  . 

Copies  of  this  resolution  having  been  forwarded  to  me  by  the  honorable 
Secretary  of  State,  under  the  seal  of  his  office,  from  Sacramento,  were  by 
me  filed  with  the  appropriate  committees  in  both  Senate  and  House,  and 
given  to  the  members  of  our  California  delegation  in  Congress. 

The  subject-matter  of  this  interest  claim  of  the  State  of  California,  I 
had  prior  thereto  made  known  to  your  office,  by  appropriate  reports,  where- 
upon you  thereafter  conferred  upon  me  your  authority  to  represent  it 
among  other  claims;  copy  of  your  said  authority  has  been  heretofore  ap- 
pended, as  my  Exhibit  No.  7,  in  my  report  on  "  California  Indian  War 
Claim^s,'^  and  to  which  reference  is  now  made,  and  all  of  which  appoint- 
ments so  made,  the  Legislature  of  California,  on  third  March,  1885,  duly 
validated,  ratified,  and  confirmed,  in  Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  3, 
copy  of  which  has  been  heretofore  appended  as  my  Exhibit  No.  8,  in  my 
report  on  ^'California  Indian  War  Claims, ^^  and  to  which  reference  is  now 
made. 

Though  every  proper  effort  was  made  by  me  and  by  other  friends  of  this 
measure  to  secure  consideration  of  these  bills  and  reports  during  the  Forty- 
eighth  Congress,  that  Congress  adjourned  without  even  considering  the 
same;  but  both  bills  stood  on  the  calendars  of  both  the  Senate  and  House 
on  the  day  of  the  sine  die  adjournment  of  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  with 
favorable  reports. 

When  the  Forty-ninth  Congress  convened  I  renewed  my  efforts  in  behalf 
of  this  same  measure  and  in  the  manner  following,  to  wit:  I  prepared  three 
bills,  and,  at  my  request,  the  same  were  introduced,  as  follows,  to  wit,  H.  R. 
No.  163,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  December  21,  1885,  a  general  bill  for 
interest  on  account  of  Indian  hostilities,^^  and  H.  R.  No.  152,  by  Hon.  Barclay 
Henley,  December  21,  1885,  and  Senate  Bill  No.  59,  by  General  Cullom, 
December  8,  1885,  general  bills  for  interest  on  account  of  the  "  War  of  the 
Rebellion J^  Copies  of  which  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
and  marked  Exhibit  No.  9. 

Said  Senate  Bill  No.  59  was  favorably  reported  upon  on  sixteenth  Decem- 
ber, 1885,  by  Senator  Hoar,  in  Senate  Report  No.  2,  copy  of  which  is  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  thereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  10.  And  the 
Senate  favorably  recognized  the  principles  contained  in  said  bills  by  reiter- 
ating the  same  thereafter  during  the  first  session  of  the  Forty-ninth  Congress 
in  its  Senate  Report  No.  183,  made  by  Senator  Hampton  on  March  3, 1886, 
in  the  "  Florida  case."  Copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part 
hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  11. 

The  position  of  the  House  of  Representatives  during  the  first  session  of 
the  Forty-ninth  Congress,  on  this  subject-matter  of  interest,  was  rather 
anomalous,  and  because  while  the  House  Committee  on  War  Claims 
reported  said  House  Bill  No.  152  unfavorably,  and  as  will  appear  from 
copy  of  their  said  report  thereon,  to  wit.  House  Report  No.  560,  made 
April  6,  1886,  by  Mr.  Perry  of  South  Carolina,  copy  of  which  is  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  12.  The  House 
Committee  on  Claims,  in  this  same  Congress,  on  four  different  occasions 
recognized  the  obligation  of  Congress  to  'pay  interest  on  similar  claims,  and 
they  so  recommended  in  four  different  reports  from  said  committee,  as  follows, 
to  wit: 


47 

First — In  its  House  Report  No.  303,  made  February  3,  1886,  by  Mr. 
Dougherty,  in  the  Florida  case. 

Second — In  its  House  Report  No.  518,  made  February  13,  1886,  by  Mr. 
Shaw,  in  the  case  of  the  States  of  Maryland  and  Virginia. 

Third — In  its  House  Report  No.  519,  made  February  13,  1886,  by  Mr. 
Trigg,  in  the  case  of  the  City  of  Baltimore,  and  the  States  of  Massachu- 
setts, New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  South 
Carolina. 

Fourth— In  its  House  Report  No.  3126,  made  June  30,  1886,  by  Mr.  Gal- 
linger,  in  the  case  of  the  First  National  Bank  of  Newton,  Massachusetts. 

Copies  of  which  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibit  No.  13. 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  House  Report  No.  1560  nowhere  meets  the 
question  of  equity  presented  in  said  Interest  Bill  H.  R.  No.  152,  as  intro- 
duced by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley.  All  there  is  of  the  report  is:  "That  the 
rule  of  adjustment  of  the  Treasury  Department  officials  in  regard  to  interest 
was  correct."  No  one  disputed  that  proposition  then,  and  no  one  disputes 
it  now.  The  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  have  to  adjust  all  accounts 
according  to  the  laws  as  they  actually  exist,  and  Congress  not  having 
enacted  any  law  allowing  interest  to  States  for  expenses  of  wars,  such  as 
California  has  heretofore  incurred,  the  Treasury  officials  of  course  could 
not  state  an  account  for  interest. 

But  the  object  of  said  H.  R.  No.  152  was  not  to  declare  that  the  account- 
ing officers  of  the  Treasury  were  right  or  wrong,  and  that  was  not  the  ques- 
tion before  the  War  Claims  Committee;  but  the  question  that  was  actually 
before  them  was,  as  to  whether  it  was  not  equitable  to  refund  or  make  to 
all  the  States  payment  for  interest  where  the  States  had  to  pay  interest, 
and  this  Report  No.  1560  dodges  that  question,  and  which  was  the  only 
one  before  the  War  Claims  Committee.  A  perusal  of  this  report  shows  that 
the  matters  therein  contained  did  not  express  the  unanimous  sentiment  of 
even  that  committee;  and  because  a  minority  report  was  also  made  at  the 
same  time  on  the  same  bill  by  Mr.  Lyman,  a  member  of  that  same  War 
Claims  Committee,  which  is  full  of  facts,  authorities,  and  precedents,  and 
wherein  the  prior  action  of  that  same  War  Claims  Committee  of  the  Forty- 
eighth  Congress  was  not  only  referred  to,  but  Mr.  Rowell's  report.  No.  1102, 
made  on  H.  R.  No.  2463,  in  the  Forty-eighth  Congress,  was  bodily  incor- 
porated in  said  minority  report. 

Not  only  this,  but  even  the  action  of  the  House  Claims  Committee  of  the 
first  session  of  the  Forty-ninth  Congress,  as  by  me  hereinbefore  referred  to, 
was  also  favorably  cited  in  said  minority  report. 

When  the  Senate  reached  the  aforesaid  Senate  Bill  No.  59,  it  was  con- 
sidering its  calendar  under  its  five-minute  rule,  and  as  a  bill  of  this  mag- 
nitude could  not  be  considered  under  any  rule  that  limited  debate  to  five 
minutes,  this  Senate  Bill  No.  59,  under  objection  under  said  rule,  "went 
over,"  and  was  never  thereafter  considered  by  the  Senate;  but  when  the 
Senate  adjourned  sine  die  this  bill  stood  at  the  head  of  the  Senate  calendar. 

For  reasons  hereinbefore  stated  on  other  of  these  claims,  the  House 
adjourned  its  first  session  without  considering  either  this  measure  as  an 
independent  proposition,  or  even  any  of  the  other  bills  in  which  said  House 
Reports  Nos.  303,  518,  519,  and  3126  had  been  made,  and  in  which  this 
measure  of  interest  had  been  favorably  recommended. 

In  conclusion,  I  beg  to  report  to  you  that  I  feel  quite  confident  that  in 
due  time  interest  on  all  California's  war  claims  will  receive  full  attention 
at  the  hands  of  the  proper  United  States  authorities,  and  wherefore  I  shall 
hereafter  renew  my  efforts  in  behalf  of  this  measure,  knowing,  as  I  do. 


48 

that  the  main  work  in  these  premises  has  already  been  done  by  me;  and 
which  work  in  due  time  must,  in  my  opinion,  eventuate  in  giving  the  State 
of  California  all  proper  benefits  of  this  equitable  claim,  the  proceeds  aris- 
ing from  which  can  be  expended  for  such  purposes  as  the  Legislature  of 
California  may  hereafter  wisely  determine. 

All  of  which  is  now  very  respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  State  of  California. 


No.  7.  REFUNDING  CALIFORNIA  SUCH  MONEYS  AS  SHE  HAS 
HERETOFORE  PAID  AS  FEES  ON  SELECTIONS  OF  AGRI- 
CULTURAL LANDS  THAT  HAVE  BEEN  CANCELED  BY  THE 
UNITED  STATES; 

AND 

PAYING  CALIFORNIA  MONEYS  THE  UNITED  STATES  HAD 
RECEIVED  FROM  SALES,  OR  BY  VIRTUE  OF  AN  ESTI- 
MATED VALUE  OF  LANDS  WHICH  HAVE  BEEN  OTHER- 
WISE DISPOSED  OF;  BUT  WHICH  LANDS  WERE  GRANTED 
OR  CONFIRMED  TO  HER  AS  SWAMP  AND  OVERFLOWED 
LANDS   BY   CONGRESS. 

My  practice  in  land  cases  arising  before  the  Interior  Department  at 
Washington,  D.  C,  brought  to  my  knowledge  some  time  ago  that  the  State 
of  California  having,  or  should  have,  paid  fees  at  the  rate  of  $2  for  selec- 
tions of  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  each,  of  lands  in  part  satisfaction  of 
sundry  grants  of  agricultural  lands  heretofore  made  to  her  by  Congress; 
and  which  selections  having  been  not  only  not  confirmed,  but  which  for 
cause  pronounced  by  the  United  States  to  be  valid,  in  sundry  cases  had 
been  canceled  by  the  General  Land  Office;  and  it  occurred  to  me  that  if  a 
proper  examination  of  the  whole  thereof  should  be  made,  it  would  clearly 
appear  to  what  extent  the  United  States  had  received  money  paid  as  fees 
by  the  State  of  California  for  such  selections  as  had  been  so  canceled.  It 
also  came  to  my  knowledge  that  the  United  States  had  in  some  cases  sold, 
and  in  other  cases  had  otherwise  disposed  of  sundry  tracts  of  land,  which 
in  my  opinion  clearly  were  not  the  property  of  the  United  States  to  either 
sell  or  otherwise  dispose  of,  and  because  I  thought  the  same  inured  to  the 
State  of  California,  under  her  swamp  land  grant  of  September  28,  1850 
(U.  S.  Statutes,  vol.  IX,  page  519),  or  under  her  confirmatory  grant  of 
July  23,  1866  (U.  S.  Statutes,  vol.  XIV,  page  218). 

Thereupon  I  brought  these  matters  to  the  attention  of  the  State  Sur- 
veyor-General, Hon.  H.  I.  Willey,  who  conferred  upon  me  his  authority  to 
represent  the  same  in  behalf  of  the  State  of  California.  Copies  of  my 
authority  in  these  premises  are  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
and  marked  as  Exhibit  No.  1. 

This  matter  of  fees  having  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  California,  that  body,  after  maturely  considering  the  same,  on 
March  3,  1885,  duly  acted  thereon,  as  appears  from  copy  thereof,  filed  as 
my  Exhibit  No.  8,  in  my  report  on  ^^  Indian  War  Claims,''^  and  to  which 
reference  is  now  made. 

Armed,  therefore,  with  this  authority  to  represent  the  interests  of  the 
State  of  California  in  these  premises,  I  thereupon  proceeded  to  make  a 
detailed  examination  of  all  the  entries  of  these  selections  of  lands  hereto- 


49 

fore  made  by  the  State  of  California,  and  which  had  been  canceled  as 
aforesaid,  in  order  to  segregate  such  of  these  selections  which  had  been  can- 
celed from  those  which  had  not  been  canceled  (numbering  in  all  as  they 
do,  a  total  aggregate  of  several  thousand  throughout  the  whole  State — now 
subdivided  into  ten  (10)  United  States  Land  Districts).  It  has  been,  and 
will  in  the  future  continue  to  be,  necessary  for  me  to  carefully  examine  the 
one  hundred  and  twenty-five  volumes  of  tract  books  in  which  these  entries 
have  been  posted  and  now  recorded  ;  and  has  been  and  will  become  also 
necessary  for  me  to  carefully  examine  into  over  two  thousand  monthly 
and  quarterly  reports  of  the  several  Registers,  and  particularly  of  the 
money  returns  of  the  Receivers  of  Public  Money  in  California,  in  order  to 
ascertain  just  what  fees  these  officers  have  reported  as  having  been  by 
them  received  from  the  State  of  California  on  account  of  said  selections 
of  lands. 

Under  a  rule  laid  down  by  the  General  Land  Office  in  these  cases,  it 
has  been  made  requisite  that  I  should  make  up  the  claims  of  the  State  of 
California  against  the  United  States,  in  each  particular  instance  of  cancel- 
lation, by  giving : 

First — The  number  of  the  State  selection  that  has  been  canceled. 

Second — The  character  of  the  land  grant  under  which  said  selection  was 
made. 

Third — The  description  of  the  land  so  selected. 

Fourth — The  land  district  in  which  was  situate  the  lands  so  selected. 
.  Fifth — The  date  when  such  selections  were  made. 

Sixth — The  date  when  the  fees  on  such  selections  were  paid. 

Seventh — The  amount  oi  the  fees  so  paid  on  such  selection. 

Eighth — The  name  of  the  officer  receiving  said  fees  for  said  selection. 

Ninth — The  date  when  such  selections  were  canceled. 

And  all  of  which,  where  not  heretofore  done,  will  have  to  be  done  by  me 
before  the  United  States  will  undertake  any  examination  in  order  to  verify 
the  accuracy  of  the  claim  so  made,  or  before  it  will  state  an  account  for 
any  sums  that  such  an  examination  may  disclose  to  be  due  the  State  of 
California  by  the  United  States  on  account  thereof. 

The  foregoing  requirements  involve  much  time,  care,  and  careful  analy- 
tical examination  of  numerous  records  and  papers,  and  is  a  class  of  work 
which  cannot  be  made  continuous,  because  many  of  these  records  are  in 
daily  use,  and  as  it  involves  many  months  of  labor,  it  is  impossible  for  any 
one  to  confine  himself  exclusively  to  same. 

In  -sdew  thereof,  my  labors  in  this  class  of  cases  are  not  yet  completed, 
so  that  I  am  unable  as  yet  to  report  to  you  what  sums  are  liable  to  be 
derived  from  this  particular  source.  It  is  proper,  however,  that  I  should 
report  to  you  that,  whereas  the  United  States  now  believe  that  the  State  of 
California  is  now  indebted  to  them,  in  a  sum  now  unascertained  on  account 
of  sundry  valid  selections  of  lands  upon  which  the  fees  as  required  py  law 
have  not  heretofore  been  paid  by  the  State  of  California,  that  I  am  liable  to 
be  confronted  with  a  proposition  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  that 
instead  of  paying  over  to  the  State  of  California  in  cash  any  particular  sum 
which  the  results  of  my  examinations  may  disclose  to  be  due  the  State  of 
California  by  the  United  States,  herein,  that  the  United  States  may  deem 
it  its  duty  to  set-off  such  sum  as  a  credit  to  such  other  sums  as  the  United 
States  may  find  to  be  due  by  the  State  of  California  on  account  of  fees  not 
heretofore  by  her  paid,  but  which  are  still  due  the  United  States  on 
account  of  other  valid   selections  of  lands,  which  have   been  heretofore 


50 

made  by  the  State  of  California  and  allowed,  or  to  be  allowed,  and  con- 
firmed, or  to  be  confirmed,  to  her  by  the  United  States. 

In  regard  to  the  second  branch  of  this  case,  to  wit,  paying  California 
those  moneys  which  the  United  States  have  either  received  from  cash  sales, 
or  due  from  an  estimated  value  of  those  otherwise  disposed  of,  and  which 
lands  were  not  the  property  of  the  United  States  to  dispose  of  at  the  date  of 
such  disposal,  but  which  lands  were  then  the  property  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, and  because  the  same  were  either  originally  granted  by  Congress  to 
California  in  her  Swamp  Land  Act  of  September  28,  1850,  or  which  were 
confirmed  to  her  on  July  23,  1866,  in  the  "Act  to  quiet  land  titles  in  Cali- 
fornia," and  a  claim  to  which  the  State  of  California  has  not  heretofore 
asserted,  or  which  claim  thereto,  if  asserted,  has  been  heretofore  unsuc- 
cessfully maintained,  or  been  declared  against  her. 

I  beg  to  report  to  you  that  I  prepared  a  general  bill  to  reach  the  remedy 
sought  for  this  purpose,  which  at  my  request  was,  on  January  11,  1886, 
introduced  by  the  Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  and  referred  to  the  House  Com- 
mittee on  Public  Lands,  to  wit,  H.  R.  No.  3222,  copy  of  which  is  hereto 
attached  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  No.  2,  and  which  I 
supported  with  an  appropriate  argument  before  said  House  Public  Lands 
Committee.  This,  and  other  bills  having  a  somewhat  similar  object  in 
view  for  other  States,  having  been  duly  considered  by  that  committee  on 
March  17,  1886,  it  made  a  favorable  report  on  the  general  subject-matter  in 
House  Report  No.  1089,  copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached,  and  which,  with 
said  amended  bill  as  reported,  are-  now  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked 
Exhibits  No.  3  and  No.  4. 

This  bill  proposes  to  pay  a  cash  indemnity  to  (among  other  States)  the 
State  of  California,  in  all  cases,  for  all  swamp  lands  which,  though  granted 
and  confirmed  to  her,  have  not  heretofore  inured  to  her  benefit,  and  of 
which  she  has  heretofore  been  deprived,  and  because  either  of  the  sales,  or 
of  the  location,  or  of  the  entry,  or  of  the  selection,  or  of  the  disposal  of  the  same 
to  or  by  some  person  or  persons  other  than  to  or  by  the  State  of  California,  the 
legal  equitable  grantee  thereof. 

The  adjustment  provided  by  said  bill  seems  to  me  to  be  in  all  respects 
equitable,  and,  in  my  opinion,  will  in  due  time  receive  the  favorable  atten- 
tion of  Congress. 

But  the  first  session  of  the  Forty-ninth  Congress,  seeming  to  have  had 
its  time  so  thoroughly  engaged  in  other  matters,  this  measure,  though 
early  and  favorably  reported  upon  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  failed 
to  receive  either  attention  or  recognition  of  that  body,  and  because  the 
calendar  of  which  it  constituted  a  part  was  never  called  during  the  first 
session  of  the  Forty-ninth  Congress,  that  adjourned  August  6,  1886. 

I  shall  hereafter  renew  my  efforts  in  behalf  of  both  of  these  two  proposi- 
tions, and  in  which  much  work  has  already  been  done  by  me,  but  in 
which  in  the  future  much  more  work  will  yet  have  to  be  done  than  has 
been  done  in  the  past,  but  which,  when  completed,  will  eventuate  in  giving 
the  State  of  California  all  proper  benefits  arising  therein,  when  the  pro- 
ceeds arising  from  these  equitable  claims  can  be  expended  for  such  pur- 
poses as  the  Legislature  of  California  may  hereafter  wisely  determine. 

All  of  which  is  now  very  respectfully  subinitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 

Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  State  of  California. 


51 


No.  8.    CONCLUSION. 

In  conclusion,  Governor,  I  have  thus  endeavored,  in  the  foregoing  synop- 
sis, to  give  you  an  accurate  and  as  complete  a  history  of  the  action  that 
has  heretofore  been  had  in  regard  to  the  several  claims  of  the  State  of 
California  against  the  United  States  that  have  been  intrusted  to  my 
agency,  and  such  as  I  thought  was  necessary  to  enable  you,  and  the  people 
of  California,  to  have  a  full  understanding  of  the  character  and  extent  of 
each,  and  what  proceedings  have  already  been  had  in  the  past,  or  that 
may  be  necessary  to  be  had  in  the  future,  in  order  to  secure  the  proper 
adjudication  and  full  payment  of  each  thereof. 

It  has  been  no  less  to  my  personal  interest  than  it  has  been  to  that  of 
the  public  interest  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  California  to  secure  the  very 
earliest  adjustment  possible  for  all  of  these  several  claims  at  the  hands  of 
the  Federal  authorities;  and  because,  under  my  contract  with  the  State, 
my  compensation  consisted  of  a  contingent  fee  only,  and  payable  only  in 
the  event  of  success,  the  State  of  California  not  incurring  any  expenses  of 
any  kind  in  regard  to  any  of  the  matters  in  anywise  connected  with  the 
presentation,  or  the  adjustment  of  any  thereof 

Any  delay,  therefore,  had  in  any  of  these  premises,  has  not  been  of  my 
creation,  or  due  to  any  laches  on  my  part;  but  such  as  they  are,  they  seem 
to  be  inseparable  from  and  generally  attend  all  adjustments  had  by  either 
individuals  or  States  with  the  Federal  Government  where  the  payment  of 
money  is  involved,  or  where  the  securing  of  adequate  legislative  machinery 
to  pay  the  same  has  been  found  necessary. 

I  know  that  the  belief  is  generally  entertained  and  has  been  sometimes 
expressed,  that  all  that  is  necessary  to  be  done  by  the  members  of  a  State 
delegation  in  Congress  is  for  them  to  ask  the  executive  departments  to  state 
accounts,  or  to  present  proper  bills  of  relief  in  Congress  for  their  respective 
States,  and  that  such  departments  or  Congress  at  once  respond  by  granting  the 
relief  or  the  remedy  sought.  My  experience,  however,  and  that  of  those  who 
have  had  most  to  do  with  this  class  of  cases,  does  not  confirm  any  such  belief 
On  the  contrary,  all  the  executive  departments,  and  all  the  committees  in 
Congress,  demand  that  all  claimants,  be  they  individuals  or  be  they  States 
(and  they  are  all  treated  equally  alike  in  all  matters  of  claims  against  the 
United  States),  should  properly  and  fully  prepare  their  respective  claims 
against  the  United  States,  and  support  the  same  with  all  proper  evidence, 
for  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  will  go  out  of  their  way  to  adduce  evidence 
to  favorably  support  the  same,  though  both  often  supplement  such  presentation 
with  evidence  intended  to  defeat  such  claims. 

It  is  therefore  not  to  be  expected  that  the  members  in  Congress,  either 
from  California  or  from  any  other  State,  will  convert  themselves,  either 
singly  or  generally,  into  special  agents  of  their  respective  States  to  properly 
prepare,  or  to  present,  or  to  plead,  or  to  argue  the  claims  of  their  respective 
States  against  the  United  States,  except  it  be  in  public  debate  upon  the 
floor  of  the  respective  Houses,  while  such  subject-matters  are  legitimately 
before  the  same  for  passage,  or  being  considered  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House,  or  before  such  special  committees  to  which  the  same  may 
have  been  reported  for  full  examination  and  proper  report  to  the  whole 
House. 

As  members  of  Congress  they  are  the  servants  of  the  United  States,  and 
are  not  and  cannot  be  made  special  agents  for  any  State  in  any  matter  that 
must  come  before  them  to  pass  upon  as  legislators,  and  besides  none  have 
the  time  and  few  even  the  disposition  to  so  act. 


52 

Besides,  the  delegation  in  Congress  from  California  has  been  constantly 
changing,  so  much  so  that  to-day  there  is  not  a  single  member  in  our  Cali- 
fornia delegation,  in  either  the  Senate  or  in  the  House,  who  was  in  Congress 
at  the  time  I  took  hold  of  these  several  claims.  Some  have  retired  from 
public  life,  while  two  of  the  Senators  who  took  a  most  active  interest  in 
behalf  of  these  several  claims,  to  wit:  Senators  Miller  and  Farley,  have 
died  during  this  time. 

It  has  been  therefore  absolutely  necessary  for  some  one,  having  both  the 
knowledge  of  all  the  facts,  and  whose  interest  it  has  been  made  by  the  State 
to  keep  constantly  before  our  delegation  in  Congress  from  California  all  the 
matters  relating  to  the  past  history  or  status  at  any  time  of  these  several 
claims,  and  to  present  from  time  to  time  to  them  such  suggestions  as  might 
seem  to  be  needed  to  secure  a  proper  understanding  of  all  that  might  be 
necessary  to  favorably  reach  the  end  sought  to  be  secured  in  all  thereof. 

This  duty  I  have  ever  sought  at  all  times  to  perform  to  the  best  of  my 
ability,  and  whatsoever  lack  of  evidence  of  this  allegation  on  my  part  the 
foregoing  reports  and  exhibits  may  disclose,  will,  I  am  confident,  be  fully 
supplied,  if  necessary,  by  every  member  of  the  California  delegation  now 
in  Congress,  or  by  any  of  its  living  ex-members,  who  have  been  by  me  kept 
fully  advised  of  all  that  has  been  done  in  these  several  claims. 

The  exhibits  appended  to  the  foregoing  reports  will,  I  believe,  fully  sup- 
ply any  information  not  to  be  found  in  the  body  of  any  one  thereof. 

When  the  several  claims  that  have  been  intrusted  to  my  care  shall 
have  been  finally  adjusted,  I  shall  then  submit  to  your  ofiice  full  and  final 
reports  on  each  thereof,  and,  in  the  meantime,  I  would  state  that  all  the 
more  valuable  papers  relating  to  these  claims,  when  not  in  use  by  me  in 
my  ofiice,  and  which  have  not  as  yet  been  filed  by  me  with  the  proper 
departments,  are  safely  and,  securely  F^ored,  at  my  own  expense,  in  one  of 
the  best  fire-proof  safe  deposits  in  this  city,  in  order  that  no  loss  of  any 
kind  should  occur  thereto  to  the  detriment  of  the  trust  that  has  been  here- 
tofore confided  to  my  care  by  the  people  of  the  State  of  California  in  and 
under  the  several  contracts  as  hereinbefore  recited. 

I  am,  Governor,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  State  of  California. 


EXHIBITS 


FIVE  PER  CENT  CLAIM, 


EXHIBIT  No.  1. 

CALIFORNIA  STATUTES.  • 

(Page  353,  for  1858.) 

Number  XII — Concurrent  Resolution  ashing  of  Congress  a  donation  of  five 
per  cent  upon  the  sale  of  public  lands  for  school  purposes. 

(Passed  March  11, 1858.) 

Whereas,  It  has  been  the  poHcy  of  the  Federal  Government  to  donate 
to  the  States,  on  their  admission  into  the  Union,  a  percentage  upon  the 
sales  of  public  lands  within  their  territories  for  State  purposes,  in  consider- 
ation of  their  exempting  such  lands  from  taxation,  which  policy  was 
departed  from  [on]  the  admission  of  California,  although  such  exemption 
was  secured;  therefore, 

.  Resolved  by  the  Assembly,  the  Senate  concurring,  That  we  do  respectfully 
ask  of  Congress  the  passage  of  an  Act  donating  to  the  State  of  California 
five  per  cent  upon  the  sales  of  all  public  lands  in  the  State,  to  be  exclu- 
sively appropriated  to  school  purposes. 

Resolved,  That  our  Senators  be  instructed  and  our  Representatives 
requested  to  use  their  influence  to  secure  the  passage  of  such  Act. 

Resolved,  That  the  Governor  be  requested  to  transmit  a  copy  of  these 
resolutions,  together  with  a  copy  of  the  accompanying  communication  from 
the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  to  our  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives in  Congress. 


EXHIBIT  No.  2. 

November  1,  1878. 


State  of  California,*  Office  of  Surveyor-General,  ) 


Capt.  John  Mullan,   San  Francisco,  California: 

Dear  Sir:  I  hereby  appoint  you  Agent  for  the  State  of  California,  to 
secure  from  the  United  States,  for  the  benefit  of  the  State  of  California,  the 
payment  by  the  United  States  to  this  State,  of  the  five  per  centum  of  the 
net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  all  public  lands  lying  within  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, which  have  been  sold  by  Congress  after  the  admission  of  said  State 
into  the  Union,  after  deducting  all  the  expenses  incident  to  the  same,  and 
to  be  deposited  in  the  State  Treasury  for  such  purposes  as  the  Legislature 
may  hereafter  direct,  which  amounts  have  been  provided  for  and  granted 
to  the  other  States  in  the  Union. 

I  shall  recommend  to  the  next  Legislature  that  you  be  paid  such  com- 
pensation for  your  services  in  the  premises  as  shall  appear  just  and  proper, 
and  based  upon  the  amount  of  moneys  you  may  succeed  in  recovering  for 
this  State. 

You  will  see  that  the  total  amount  recovered,  without  any  deduction  of 
any  kind  whatsoever,  shall  be  transmitted  by  draft,  and  not  otherwise,  by 


56 

the  Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  to  the  Treasurer 
of  the  State  of  California.  You  will  report  to  this  office  from  time  to  time 
the  results  of  your  action  in  these  premises. 

WM.  MINIS,  Surveyor-General. 


EXHIBIT  No.  3. 

[Copy.]  •    November  20,  1878. 

FIVE  PER  CENTUM  OF  THE  NET  PROCEEDS  OF  THE  SALES 
OF  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS,  ETC.,  IN  CALIFORNIA. 

Hon.  J.  A.  Williamson,  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office^  Washing- 
ton, D.  C: 

Dear  Sir:  I  have  the  honor  respectfully  to  inform  you  of  my  appoint- 
ment as  Agent  for  the  State  of  California,  to  secure  from  the  United  States, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  State  of  California,  the  five  per  centum  of  the  net 
proceeds  of  the  sales  of  all  public  lands  in  said  State,  which  have  been  sold 
or  disposed  of  by  Congress  since  the  date  of  the  admission  of  said  State 
into  the  Union,  after  deducting  all  the  expenses  incident  to  the  same,  etc. 
I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  you  herewith  a  copy  of  my  said  appointment, 
which  I  request  may  be  filed  in  your  office. 

I  respectfully  request  to  be  informed  by  your  office,  at  an  early  date, 
what  amount  of  money  may  be  now  due  the  State  of  California  from  the 
United  States,  the  same  being  the  said  five  per  centum,  etc.,  under  existing 
laws. 

If  in  your  opinion  there  is  not  anything  due  the  State  of  California  under 
existing  laws  and  under  said  head  of  five  per  centum  of  the  sales  of  public 
lands  in  California,  then,  and  in  that  event,  I  further  respectfully  request 
that  I  may  have  access  to  such  data  and  information  now  on  file  in  your 
office  as  relates  to  said  five  per  centum,  as  heretofore  received  by  other 
States  of  the  Union,  such  as  will  enable  me  to  properly  lay  this  subject- 
matter  before  Congress  at  an  early  date,  and  for  the  purpose  of  securing 
such  beneficial  legislation  in  behalf  of  the  State  of  California  as  Congress 
may  deem  just  and  proper  in  the  premises. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  MULLAN. 


EXHIBIT  No.  4. 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office, 
[Copy.]  Washington,  D.  C,  November  29,  1878. 

John  Mullan,  Esq.,  Washington,  D.  C:  . 

Sir:  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  communication  of 
twentieth  instant,  inclosing  a  copy  of  your  appointment  as  Agent  for  the 
State  of  California,  in  the  matter  of  the  claim  for  five  per  centum  on  the 
net  proceeds  of  sales  of  public  lands  within  her  limits. 

In  reply,  you  are  informed  that  no  provision  of  law  exists  under  which 
the  State  of  California  is  entitled  to  any  percentage  on  sales  of  public  lands. 

In  the  cases  of  other  States,  specific  provisions  of  law  exist,  and  in  the 


57 

absence  of  such  relating  to  the  State  of  Cahfornia,  no  account  of  the  net 
proceeds  arising  from  sales  of  public  lands  within  the  limits  of  said  State 
has  been  kept. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  M.  ARMSTRONG, 

Acting  Commissioner. 

.     EXHIBIT  No.  5. 

Washington,  D.  C,  December  10,  1878. 

Hon.  J.  K.  LuTTRELL,  IJ.  S.  House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir:  I  desire  very  respectfully  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact, 
that  many  of  the  States  west  of  the  Mississippi  River,  and  some  east  thereof, 
have,  under  various  Acts  of  Congress,  heretofore  received,  and  are  still 
receiving  from  the  United  States,  five  per  centum  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States  situated  within  their  borders. 

Of  the  Pacific  States,  Oregon  and  Nevada  are  constantly  receiving  their 
five  per  centum  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  of  the  United 
States  within  their  limits,  as  the  sales  thereof  progress. 

California  has  not,  up  to  date,  received  any  benefit  from  any  such  legis- 
lation in  her  behalf,  and,  in  my  judgment,  there  is  no  good  or  sufficient 
reason  why  she  should  not  be  so  entitled,  equally  with  the  other  States  of 
the  Union.  Even-handed  justice  demands  that  she  be  accorded  this.  As 
a  citizen  of  California,  and  acting  in  her  behalf  therein,  I  desire,  there- 
fore, to  very  respectfully  bring  this  matter  officially  to  the  attention  of 
yourself,  and  through  you  to  that  of  our  delegation  in  Congress,  and  in  the 
name  of  said  State,  to  request  that  you  may,  at  an  early  date,  introduce 
into  the  House  of  Representatives  a  bill,  having  for  its  object  the  securing 
to  California  this  benefit.  In  connection  with  this  subject  I  suggest,  with 
respect,  the  propriety  of  the  introduction  by  you  of  a  resolution  of  inquiry, 
to  be  addressed  to  the  Hon.  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  as 
to  the  names  of  the  States  that  have  received,  and  are  still  receiving,  such 
benefit,  and  the  Acts  of  Congress  under  which  the  States  have  received, 
and  do  still  receive,  the  same,  and  the  amounts  of  money  already  paid  to 
each  up  to  date  under  such  Acts. 

This  information  will  be  useful  in  guiding  you  and  the  friends  of  this 
measure  aright  in  the  premises. 

I  inclose  you  herewith  a  form  of  resolution  and  bill,  such  as  will,  I  think, 
cover  the  subject-matter  referred  to,  requesting  your  very  early  and  careful 
attention  to  the  matter. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  MULLAN, 

Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  State  of  California. 


EXHIBIT  No.  6. 

I  think  a  general  bill  that  will  include  all  those  States  that  have  not  yet 
received  this  benefit,  is  better  than  one  applying  exclusively  to  California. 

J.  K.  LUTTRELL. 


68 


EXHIBIT  No.  7. 

Forty-fifth  Congress,  third  session.    R.  H.  6081.    Printer's  No.  6782. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     January  20,  1879 — Kead  twice,  re- 
ferred to  the  Commitee  on  the  Public  Lands,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Wigginton,  on  leave,  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  grant  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
sale  of  the  public  lands  situate  within  said  State. 

Whereas,  The  several  States  of  Ohio,  Louisiana,  Indiana,  Mississippi, 
Illinois,  Alabama,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Michigan,  Florida,  Iowa,  Wisconsin, 
Minnesota,  Oregon,  Kansas,  Nevada,  Nebraska,  and  Colorado,  constituting 
the  entire  list  of  public  land  States,  except  California,  have  each  and  all 
received  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands 
situate  within  their  limits  respectively ;  and  whereas,  California  is  the  only 
State  of  the  public  land  States  that  has  not  received  said  five  per  centum. 
Therefore, 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  five  per  centum  of  the  net 
proceeds  of  the  sales  of  all  public  lands  of  the  United  States  situate  within 
the  State  of  California,  sold  subsequent  to  the  date  of  admission  of  said 
State  into  the  Union,  and  which  may  hereafter  be  sold,  after  deducting  all 
the  expenses  incident  thereto,  shall  be  paid  to  the  State  of  California,  and 
for  the  purpose  of  making  or  improving  public  roads,  constructing  drain- 
age and  irrigating  ditches  and  canals  to  effect  a  general  system  for  irri- 
gating the  agricultural  lands  in  said  State,  and  in  the  mode  and  mianner 
as  the  Legislature  of  said  State  may  establish  and  direct. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  make  such  rules  and  regulations  as 
shall  execute  the  foregoing  provisions,  and  upon  the  principles  that  have 
heretofore  existed  or  do  still  exist  in  similar  matters  in  any  of  the  States 
aforesaid. 

Sec.  3.  This  Act  shall  take  efifect  and  be  in  force  from  and  after  its 
passage. 

EXHIBIT  No.  8. 

Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  1,  relative  to  the  sale  of  public  lands. 
[Adopted  February  9, 1881.] 

Whereas,  The  States  of  Ohio,  Louisiana,  Indiana,  Mississippi,  Illinois, 
Alabama,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Michigan,  Florida,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minne- 
sota, Oregon,  Kansas,  Nevada,  Nebraska,  and  Colorado,  constituting  the 
entire  list  of  public  land  States,  except  California,  have  each  received  a 
certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands 
situate  within  their  limits  respectively;  and  whereas,  California  is  the  only 
State  of  the  public  land  States  that  has  not  received  any  percentum; 
therefore,  be  it 

Resolved  by  the  Senate,  the  Assembly  concurring:  First — That  the  Legis- 
lature of  California  does  hereby  memorialize  Congress  to  place  the  State  of 
California  upon  the  same  footing,  as  regards  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  all 


59 

public  lands  in  the  said  State,  as  the  other  States  named  in  the  preamble; 
and  to  give  California  all  the  benefits  and  payments  to  which  said  States, 
or  either  of  them,  are  entitled  under  all  Acts  of  Congress  heretofore  passed, 
or  that  may  hereafter  be  passed,  and  the  same,  when  granted,  to  be  dedi- 
cated to  educational  purposes. 

Second — That  our  Representatives  in  Congress  are  hereby  requested, 
and  our  Senators  instructed,  to  vote  for,  and  in  all  honorable  ways  endeavor 
to  secure  the  passage  of  an  Act  of  Congress  granting  'this  State  five  per 
centum  for  said  purposes. 

Third — That  the  Governor  is  hereby  requested  to  forward  a  copy  of  this 
memorial  to  each  Senator  and  Representative  from  California  in  Con- 
gress, for  his  information  and  favorable  action  in  the  premises. 


EXHIBIT  No.  9. 

Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.    S.  311. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.    December  8,  1881. 


Mr.  Farley  asked,  and  by  unanimous  consent,  obtained  leave  to  bring 
in  the  following  bill,  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Public  Lands: 

A    BILL 

Granting  to  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sale  of 
public  lands  in  that  State. 

Whereas,  The  States  of  Ohio,  Louisiana,  Indiana,  Mississippi,  Illinois, 
Alabama,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Michigan,  Florida,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minne- 
sota, Oregon,  Kansas,  Nevada,  Nebraska,  and  Colorado,  constituting  the 
list  of  all  the  public  land  States  except  California,  have  each  received  a 
certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands 
situate  in  their  limits  respectively;  and  whereas,  California  is  the  only 
public  land  State  that  has  not  received  any  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds 
of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  in  said  State;  therefore. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That'  there  be  and  is  hereby 
granted  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of 
the  sales  of  the  public  lands  which  have  been  or  may  hereafter  be  made 
in  said  State,  and  the  same  shall  be  dedicated  by  said  State  to  aid  in  the 
support  of  the  public  or  common  schools  of  said  State. 


EXHIBIT  No.  9}4. 

Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  61.    Printer's  No.  61. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     December  13,  1881 — Read  twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Berry  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A    BILL 

Granting  to  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sale  of 
public  lands  in  that  State. 

Whereas,  The  States  of  Ohio,  Louisiana,  Indiana,  Mississippi,  Illinois, 
Alabama,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Michigan,  Florida,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minne- 


60 

sota,  Oregon,  Kansas,  Nevada,  Nebraska,  and  Colorado,  constituting  the 
list  of  all  the  public  land  States  except  California,  have  each  received  a 
certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands 
situate  within  their  limits  respectively;  and  whereas,  California  is  the  only- 
public  land  State  that  has  not  received  any  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds 
of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  in  said  State;  therefore, 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  there  be  and  is  hereby 
granted  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of 
the  sales  of  the  public  lands  which  have  been  or  may  hereafter  be  made 
in  said  State,  and  the  same  shall  be  dedicated  by  said  State  to  aid  in  the 
support  of  the  public  or  common  schools  of  said  State. 


EXHIBIT  NO.  10. 

Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session. 

In  the  Matter  of  Senate  Bill  No.  311  and  H.  R.  No.  61. 
CALIFORNIA  FIVE   PER  CENT   BILL. 

The  object  of  Senate  Bill  No.  311,  introduced  in  the  United  States  Senate 
on  December  8,  1881,  by  Senator  Farley  of  California,  and  reported  favor- 
ably to  the  Senate,  and  without  amendment  from  the  Senate  Committee 
on  Public  Lands,  February  20, 1882,  by  Senator  Plumb  of  Kansas,  is  to 
place  the  State  of  California  upon  an  equal  footing  with  all  other  public 
land  States,  by  extending  to  her  the  provisions  of  a  law  similar  to  existing 
laws  relating  to  the  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the 
public  lands  of  the  United  States  in  the  several  States.  A  similar  bill 
(H.  R.  No.  61)  was  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  by  Hon. 
C.  P.  Berry  of  California,  on  December  13, 1881,  and  is  now  pending  before 
the  House  Committee  on  Public  Lands. 

Since  the  date  of  the  organization  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  to  the  present  time,  it  has  ever  been  its  policy,  without  a  single 
exception,  when  creating  and  admitting  new  States  into  the  Union,  to  grant 
to  said  States  some  certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of 
the  public  lands  therein. 

The  State  of  California  was  admitted  into  the  Union  September  9, 1850, 
and  in  the  Act  of  Congress  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  9,  p.  452)  so  admitting  her, 
it  was  declared  that  she  should  be  admitted  on  an  equal  footing  with  all 
the  other  States,  in  all  respects  whatsoever. 

But  Congress,  in  Section  3  of  said  Act  of  her  admission,  imposed  upon 
said  State  the  identical  obligation  and  express  conditions  as  then  and 
hitherto  imposed  upon  all  new  States,  to  wit:  "That  California  should 
never  interfere  with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  public  lands  within  its 
limits,  and  pass  no  law  and  do  no  act  whereby  the  title  of  the  United 
States  and  right  to  dispose  of  the  same  should  be  impaired  or  questioned; 
and  that  she  should  never  levy  any  tax  or  assessment,  of  any  description 
whatsoever,  upon  the  public  domain  therein;  and  that  the  non-resident 
proprietors  of  said  lands — citizens  of  the  United  States — should  not  be 
taxed  higher  than  residents;  and  that  all  the  navigable  waters  in  said 
State  should  be  common  highways,  forever  free  to  all  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  without  tax,  impost,  or  duty  therefor." 


61 

Now,  these  conditions  were  quite  identical  with  the  conditions  imposed 
by  Congress  upon  other  new  States ;  and  in  consideration  thereof,  and  for 
other  good  and  sufficient  reasons,  Congress  has  ever  granted  to  said  new 
public  land  States  a  certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of 
the  public  land  therein ;  the  same  to  be  expended  either  as  Congress 
indicated  in  the  granting  Acts,  or  as  the  Legislatures  of  said  States,  with 
the  consent  of  Congress,  should  best  determine. 

These  grants  by  Congress  have  been  made  either  in  the  Enabling  Acts 
of  said  States  or  in  their  Act  of  admission,  or  by  some  subsequent  legis- 
lation. 

A  table  is  hereto  appended  wherein  are  fully  given  the  dates,  volumes, 
and  pages  of  the  United  States  Statutes  wherein  Congress  has  extended  to 
the  several  States  this  class  of  legislation,  as  applicable  to  all  the  so  called 
public  land  States,  and  also  to  the  thirteen  original  States.  California  was 
admitted  into  the  Union  without  any  Enabling  Act.  The  public  land  laws 
of  the  United  States  were  not  extended  to  said  State  until  March  3,  1858 
(U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  10,  p.  244),  and  no  sales  of  the  public  lands  in  said  State 
were  reported  prior  to  July  1,  1857,  and  in  the  three  years  preceding  the 
year  of  the  rebellion  the  reported  net  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the  public 
lands  in  said  State  aggregated  only  $86,371  92,  the  five  per  cent  of  which 
is  $4,318  59.  There  was  nothing  in  this  small  sum,  and  nothing  in  the 
surroundings  of  the  Treasury  Department  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  at  the  beginning  of  or  during  the  years  of  the  late  war,  or  even 
immediately  subsequent  thereto,  that  would  seem  to  justify  the  State  of 
California  to  request  that  a  statement  of  an  account  with  the  United 
States  Treasury  Department  be  made  by  the  United  States  Land  Depart- 
ment in  her  behalf  regarding  this  five  per  cent. 

In  view  thereof,  nothing  was  done  in  these  premises  until  1878,  when  all 
the  circumstances  having  changed,  the  undersigned,  as  attorney  in  behalf 
of  said  State,  requested  the  honorable  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office  to  state  an  account  to  the  United  States  Treasury  Department, 
under  existing  laws,  in  behalf  of  said  State,  for  her  five  per  cent  of  the  net 
proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the  public  lands  therein.  This  request  was  not 
complied  with  by  said  Commissioner,  and  because,  as  stated  by  him  in 
writing,  in  reply  to  said  request,  that  he  was  not  vested  with  sufficient 
authority  of  law  to  state  such  an  account,  and  would  not  be  so  enabled 
without  additional  legislation  by  Congress. 

This  last  fact  was  thereupon  duly  communicated  by  the  undersigned  to 
the  proper  authorities  of  California,  whereupon  the  Legislature  thereof,  by 
appropriate  resolution,  memorialized  Congress  on  this  subject,  and  that  it 
take  action  thereon  by  appropriate  and  early  legislation. 

Copies  of  this  memorial  were  duly  sent  to  the  California  delegation  in 
Congress,  and  are  now  matters  of  record,  with  the  papers  relating  to  this 
case  now  before  both  the  Senate  and  House. 

The  California  delegation  in  Congress  have  sought  to  execute  the  will 
of  said  State  as  expressed  in  said  memorial,  by  securing  the  passage  of 
either  Senate  Bill  No.  311,  or  House  Bill  No.  61. 

At  the  request  of  the  undersigned,  a  copy  of  this  memorial  has  been  filed 
by  the  Hon.  George  C.  Perkins,  the  present  Governor  of  California.,  with 
the  Chairman  of  the  Public  Land  Committee  in  both  the  Senate  and 
House,  under  the  seal  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  said  State,  and  the 
same  now  is  a  matter  of  record  in  both  Houses  of  Congrses.  In  order  to 
show  what  has  heretofore  been  done  by  Congress,  by  the  General  Land 
Office,  and  by  the  Treasury  Department,  in  regard  to  the  net  proceeds  of 
the  sales  of  public  lands  in  the  several  public  land  States,  the  under- 


62 

signed  has  prepared  and  now  submits  herewith,  and  as  a  part  hereof,  a 
series  of  tables,  from  No.  1  to  No.  8,  inclusive,  which  show  at  a  glance  the 
specific  sums  of  money  that  any  particular  State  has  already  received  up 
to  June  30,  1880,  and  the  authority  of  law  for  the  same.  Tables  Nos.  1, 
3,  4,  5,  6,  and  7  have  been  submitted  by  me  to  the  honorable  Commis- 
sioner of  the  General  Land  Office  for  examination  and  verification,  and  he 
has,  over  his  own  signature,  certified  that  the  same  are  correct.  The 
original  certified  tables  above  named,  have  been  by  me  delivered  to  Hon. 
Senator  Farley  of  California,  to  be  used  by  him,  if  needed,  on  the  floor  of 
the  Senate  when  urging  the  passage  of  his  said  Senate  Bill  No.  311. 

These  tables  show  that  the  State  of  California  would  be  entitled  to  receive 
up  to  July  first,  the  sum  of  $408,180  40. 

This  claim  of  the  State  of  California,  so  long  overlooked  by  Congress,  is 
well  founded  in  equity.  Similar  claims  have  never  as  yet  been  denied  in 
any  single  instance  to  any  of  the  public  land  States ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, have  been  invariably  granted,  and  that,  too,  by  prompt  and  adequate 
legislation  of  Congress  whenever  properly  asked  for. 

California,  through  her  Legislature  has  memorialized  Congress  that  it 
enact  appropriate  legislation,  by  means  of  which  she  will  be  placed  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  other  public  land  States,  and,  as  we  submit,  was 
intended  and  provided  for  in  her  Act  of  admission.  It  is  respectfully 
submitted  that  her  delegation  in  Congress,  in  both  Senate  and  House,  will 
be  only  executing  the  views  and  wishes  of  said  State,  and  of  the  people 
thereof,  as  expressed  in  their  State  Legislature,  by  securing  the  passage  of 
Senate  Bill  No.  311,  now  on  the  Senate  calendar  (Order  of  Business  No. 
256). 

The  matters  herein  contained  have  all  been  by  me  heretofore  laid  before 
the  Public  Land  Committee  of  both  Senate  and  House  in  support  of  this 
measure,  and  are  now  matters  of  record  with  the  papers  relating  thereto. 

In  conclusion,  I  now  very  respectfully  request  that  Congress  may  enact 
either  of  said  bills  into  a  law  at  the  earliest  date  practicable. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
Agent  and  Attorney  for  the  State  of  California. 
1310  Connecticut  Avenue, 

Washington,  D.  C,  April  12,  1882. 


63 


TABLE  No.  1. 


Statement  of  the  Public  Lands  sold  for  Cash  in  the  State  of  California,  amount  received  therefor, 
and  expenses  incident  to  the  sale  thereof  by  fiscal  years,  from  July  1, 1857,  to  June  30, 1881, 
both  inclusive.  ' 


Fiscal  Tears. 

Acres  Sold. 

Amount 
Keceived. 

Expenses  of  Sale. 

1858  -- -- 

675.07 

105,585.70 

37,274.44 

80,425.94 

15,442.33 

19,726.55 

39,605.39 

89,232.67 

82,387.59 

258,658.57 

464,405.23 

1,726,794.39 

445,961.61 

221,186.36 

255,060.46 

202,060.73 

266,127.55 

358,298.73 

306,486.57 

401,022.17 

277,938.62 

141,287.91 

111,852.88 

143,380.20 

$843  81 , 

133,432  32 

46,593  11 

101,357  57 

19,651  72 

24,895  48 

49,506  99 

111,589  74 

105.511  49 
354,315  39 
597,272  83 

2,198,661  96 
608,009  64 

367.512  79 
464,188  81 
489,497  05 
507,153  55 
658,266  62 
536,280  81 
483,932  19 
396,819  52 
219,436  22 
191,239  00 
308,689  55 

$8,503  21 

1859     - -- 

43,654  41 

I860       - 

42,309  70 
38,927  06 

1861        .  -  - -- 

1862                     .  . 

39,274  84 
12,106  32 
11,359  10 
10,350  72 

1863  

1864  - 

1865    

1866         

15,360  33 
14,369  97 

1867. - 

1868  - - - 

18,860  23 
32,381  11 
24,430  86 
20,452  58 

1869  

1870  .    .       - 

1871- • - - - 

1872 

39,822  10 

1873  - - 

41,774  12 

1874     

46,577  22 

1875 - - 

51,368  96 

1876 

51,286  27 
48,294  92 
47,135  05 

1877  - - - 

1878   ._- -- 

1879          

48,342  14 
51,172  16 

1880 

1881- - 

52,934  94 

6,050,877.66 

$8,974,658  16 

$811,048  32 

The  gross  receipts  for  the  time  above  stated  were .-- $8,974,658  16 

The  expenses  thereof  amounted  to - 811,048  32 

Net  receipts $8,163,609  84 

Five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  amounts  to  - 408,180  49 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office, 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882. 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

•      *  N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 


64 


TABLE  No.  2. 

Statement  of  the  Total  Amounts  of  Money  received  by  the  several  States  of  the  United  States  from 
the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  Public  Lands  up  to  June  30,, 1880. 


States. 

Al. 

Bl. 

A  2. 

B2. 

C. 

Total. 

Alabama 

$17,119  35 
3,134  60 

$2,107  71 
385  93 

$5,248  74 
1,348  19 

$649  43 
143  44 

$1,004,365  57 

227,359  05 

9,589  73 

$1,029,490  20 

232,371  21 

9,589  73 

12,180  70 

3,027  14 

30,711  73 

22,750  37 

763,307  92 

648,555  63 

627  768  86 

Arkansas -. 

Colorado    

Connecticut      

10,845  43 

2,695  30 

1,545  96 

20,256  43 

16,654  33 

23,994  54 

1,508  03 

1,335  27 

331  84 

190  33 

2,493  94 

2,050  46 

2,954  17 

185  67 

Delaware    -  - 

Florida 

28,975  44 

Georgia 

Illinois 

29,635  02 
2,883  12 

2,223  29 
446  30 

712,744  82 
618,277  50 
626,075  16 
258,842  11 

Iowa    

Kansas 

258,842  11 
27,776  19 

329.781  88 
19,716  23 
17,057  42 
28,985  35 

481,074  12 

99,409  47 

1,001,920  42 

574,670  38 

116,578  67 

8,319  84 

11,181  36 

Kentucky  . 

24,731  31 
9,971  59 
17,554  90 
15,187  54 
25,807  92 
7,426  03 

3,044  88 
1,227  69 
2,161  33 
1,869  88 
3,177  43 
914  28 

Louisiana 

2,827  99 

141  72 

315,612  89 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan       _  . 

1,141  79 

247  47 

471,344  55 
99,409  47 
987,832  28 
551,423  83 
116,578  67 
8,319  84 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

10,410  19 
12,608  67 

1,281  69 
1,552  35 

2,396  26 
8,388  24 

697  39 

Nebraska 

Nevada  ._ 

New  Hampshire 

New  Jersey 

9,955  64 
13,050  42 
84,974  15 
22,917  97 
53,157  53 

1,225  72 
1,606  75 
10,461  89 
2,821  63 
6,544  67 

14,657  17 
95,436  04 
25  739  60 

New  York 

North  Carolina 

Ohio 

923  64 

420  49 

596,634  10 
34,911  09 

657,680  43 
34,911  09 

Oregon ' 

Pennsylvania 

60,313  27 

3,807  28 

16,218  15 

26,447  68 

10,213  61 

37,090  48 

1,082  45 

1,463  53 

7,425  68 

468  75 

1,996  75 

3.256  20 

1.257  48 
4,566  52 

133  27 
180  19 

67,738  95 

4,276  03 

18,214  90 

29,703  88 

11,471  09 

41,657  00 

456,469  45 

1,643  72 

Rhode  Island 

South  Carolina    

Tennessee  - 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Wisconsin 

455,253  73 

District  of  Columbia. 

65 


TABLE  No.  3— A  1. 

Statement  showiny  the  respective  Shares  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  of  the  United  States 
and  the  District  of 'Columbia  under  the  Distribution  Act  of  fourth  September,  IS^i,  of  the 
residue  of  the  Net  Proceeds  of  the  Public  Lands  sold  in  the  half  year  ending  thirtieth  June, 


States,  Territokies,  and  District  of  Columbia. 


Free 
Population. 


Slaves. 


Federal 
Numbers. 


Distributive 
Shares. 


Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut 

Vermont 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

Delaware 

Maryland 

Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

Louisiana 

Tennessee .. 

Kentucky 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Missouri _. 

Arkansas 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

Iowa-. 

Florida 

District  of  Columbia 

Totals 


501,793 

284,573 

737,698 

108,825 

309,998 

291,948 

2,428,917 

372,632 

1,723,969 

75,480 

380,282 

790.810 

507,602 

267,360 

410,448 

337.224 

180,440 

183,959 

646,151 

597,570 

1,519,464 

685,863 

475,852 

325,462 

77,639 

212,267 

30,934 

43,096 

28,760 

39,018 


0 
1 
1 
5 

17 

0 

4 

674 

64 

2,605 

89,737 

448,987 

245,817 

327,038 

280,944 

253,532 

195,211 

168,452 

183,059 

182,258 

3 

3 

331 

58,240 

19,935 

0 

11 

16 

25,717 

4,694 


501,793 
284,574 
737,699 
108,828 
310,008 
291,948 

2,428,919 
373,036 

1,724,007 

77,043 

434,124 

1,060,202 
655,092 
463,583 
579,014 
489,343 
297,567 
285,030 
755,986 
706,925 

1,519,466 

685,865 

476,051 

360,406 

89,600 

212,267 

30,941 

43,106 

44,190 

41,834 


14,576,034 


2,487,356 


16,068,447 


$17,554  90 

9,955  64 

25,807  92 

3,807  28 

10,845  43 

10,213  61 

84,974  15 

13,050  42 

60,313  27 

2,695  30 

15,187  54 

37,090  48 

22,917  97 

16,218  15 

20,256  43 

17,119  35 

10,410  19 

9,971  59 

26,447  68 

24,731  31 

53,157  53 

23,994  54 

16,654  33 

12,608  57 

3,134  60 

7,426  03 

1,082  45 

1,508  03 

1,545  96 

1,463  53 


$562,144  18 


Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office, 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882. 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 


66 


TABLE  No.  4— B  1. 

Statement  shoiving  the  respective  Shares  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  of  the  United  States 
and  the  District  of  Columbia  under  the  Distributiori  Act  of  fourth  Sejjtemher,  I84I,  of  the  resi- 
due of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  Public  Lands  sold  from  the  first  day  of  July  to  the  twenty-ninth 
of  August,  184-2,  inclusive. 


States,  Territokies,  and  District  of  Columbia. 


Free 
Population. 


Slavt 


Federal 
Numbers. 


Distributive 
Shares. 


Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island- 

Connecticut .- 

Vermont 

New  York 

New  Jersey  --. 

Pennsylvania 

Delaware 

Maryland 

Virginia _. 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Alabama  - 

Mississippi 

Louisiana .- 

Tennessee 

Kentucky  _ 

Ohio.- 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Missouri 

Arkansas .- 

Michigan — 

Wisconsin 

Iowa 

Florida 

District  of  Columbia 

Totals 


501,793 

284,573 

737,698 

108,825 

309,998 

291,948 

2,428,917 

372,632 

1,723,969 

75,480 

380,282 

790,810 

507,602 

267,360 

410,448 

337,224 

180,440 

183,959 

&46,151 

597,570 

1,519,464 

685,863 

475,852 

325,462 

77,639 

212,267 

30,934 

43,096 

28,760 

39,018 


4 

674 

64 

2,605 

89,737 

448,987 

245,817 

327,038 

280,944 

253,532 

195,211 

168,452 

180,059 

182,258 

3 

3 

331 

58,240 

19,935 


11 

16 

25,717 

4,694 


501,793 
284,574 
737,699 
108,828 
310,008 
291,948 

2,428,919 
373,036 

1,724,007 

77,043 

434.124 

1,060,202 
655,092 
463,583 
579,014 
489,343 
297,567 
285,030 
755,986 
706,925 

1,519,466 

685,865 

476,051 

360,406 

89,600 

212,267 

30,941 

43,106 

44,190 

41,834 


$2,161  33 

1,225  72 

3,177  43 

468  75 

1,335  27 

1,257  48 

10,461  89 

1,606  75 

7,425  68 

331  84 

1,869  88 

4,566  52 

2,821  63 

1,996  75 

2,493  94 

2,107  71 

1,281  69 

1,227  69 

3,256  20 

3,044  88 

6,544  67 

2,954  17 

2,050  46 

1,552  35 

385  93 

914  28 

133  27 

185  67 

190  33 

180  19 


14,576,034 


2,487,356 


16,068,447 


$69,210  35 


Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  | 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882.      ) 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 


67 


TABLE  No.  5— A  2. 


Statement  of  the  Additio7ial  Allowance  to  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Arkansas, 
Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  and  Michigan,  of  ten  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  Pub- 
lic Lands  sold  in  the  half  year  ending  thirtieth  June,  1842,  under  the  Distribution  Act  of  fourth 
September,  ISJ^l,  according  to  the  mode  prescribed  by  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury : 


States  and  Territories. 

Gross  proceeds  of 

Xaiids sold  instates 

and  Territories. 

Proportion  of 

Expenses  to  be 

deducted. 

Net  proceeds  of 
Sales  after  deduct- 
ing proportion 
of  Expenses  from 
gross  proceeds. 

Additional  allow- 
ance of  ten  per 
cent  to  each  of  the 
new  States  on  net 
proceeds  of  Sales 
therein. 

Ohio--. 

Indiana -. 

$12,534  27 
39,125  53 

402,163  06 

113,832  94 
18,295  69 
38,377  32 
32,518  52 
71,228  19 
15,494  68 

743,570  20 
93,646  50 

$3,297  88 

10,294  29 

105,812  86 

29,950  51 

4,813  78 

10,097  43 

8,555  92 

18,740  80 

4,076  79 

195,640  26 

24,639  27 

$9,236  39 
28,831  24 

296,350  20 
83,882  43 
13,481  91 
28,279  89 
23,962  60 
52,487  39 
11,417  89 

547,929  94 
69,207  23 

$923  64 

2,883  12 

29,635  02 

Illinois    

Missouri 

Arkansas 

8,388  24 
1,348  19 
2,827  99 
2,396  26 
5,248  74 
1,141  79 

Louisiana 

Mississippi 

Alabama .. 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

Iowa 

Totals 

$837,216  70 

$220,279  53 

$616,937  17^ 

$54,792  99 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  ] 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  .1882.      j 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 


table  No.  6— B  2, 

Statement  of  the  Additional  Allowance  to  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Mlssoiiri,  Arkan- 
sas, Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  and  Michigan,  of  the  ten  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds 
of  the  Public  Lands  sold  therein  respectively,  from  the  first  day  of  July  to  the  twenty-ninth 
of  August,  I842,  inclusive,  under  the  Distribution  Act  of  fourth  September,  1841,  according 
to  the  mode  prescribed  by  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury. 


States  and  Territories. 

Gross  proceeds  of 

Sales  in  the 
States  and  Territo- 
ries,   deducting 
proportion  of  $0  43 
excess  of  repay 
in   Miss. 

Proportion  of 
Expenses  deducted 
from  gross  pro- 
ceeds. 

Net  proceeds  of 
Sales  after  deduct- 
ing from  the 
gross  proceeds  the 

proportion  of 
Expenses  as  stated. 

Additional 
allowance  to  the 

above  men- 
tioned States  of  ten 

per  cent  of  net 

proceeds  of  Lands 

sold  therein. 

Ohio.-- -.- 

$7,286  63 
7,733  95 

38,527  51 

r2,085  07 

2,485  73 

2,455  96 

11,253  99 

4,288  38 

$3,081  76 
3,270  95 

16,294  59 
5,111  19 
1,051  30 
1,038  71 
4,759  69 
1,813  70 

$4,204  87 
4,463  00 

22,232  92 
6,973  88 
1,434  43 
1,417  25 
6,494  30 
2,474  68 

$420  49 
446  30 

Indiana 

Illinois 

2'^'?3  29 

Missouri - 

697  39 

Arkansas 

143  44 

Louisiana 

141  72 

Alabama 

Michigan 

649  43 

247  47 

Totals - 

$86,117  22 

$36,421  89 

$49,695  33 

$4,969  53 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  } 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882.      j 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner.  • 


68 

TABLE  No.  7— C. 

Statement  of  the  Amounts  which  have  accrued  to  the  following  named  States  up  to  the  thirtieth 
June,  1880,  on  account  of  the  two,  three,  and  five  per  cent  upon  the  net  proceeds  of  the  Sales 
of  the  Public  Lands  within  their  respective  limits. 


States. 

Two  Per  Cent. 

Three  Per  Cent. 

Five  Per  Cent. 

Aggregate. 

Alabama 

$401,782  23 

$602,583  34 

$1,004,365  57 

$227,359  05 

9,589  73 

28,975  44 

626,075  16 

227,359  05 

9,589  73 

Florida    . 

28,975  44 

Iowa 

626,075  16 

Illinois 

712,744  82 

618,277  50 

712,744  82 

618,277  50 

258,842  ii 
315,612  89 

258,842  11 

315,612  89 

395,142  08 

15,587  78 

592,690  20 
535,836  05 

987,832  28 
551,423  83 
471,344  55 

Michigan 

471,344  55 

99,409  47 

8,319  84 

116,578  67 
34,911  09 

Minnesota 

99,409  47 

8,319  84 
116,578  67 

Nebraska    

34,911  09 

Ohio     

596,634  10 

596,634  10 

'\Yisconsin 

455,253  73 

455,253  73 

Totals 

$812,512  09 

$3,658,766  01 

$2,652,271  73 

$7,123,549  83 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office, 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882. 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it. to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 


69 

TABLE  No.  8. 

Acts  of  Congress  granting  to  the  several  States  of  the  United  States  certain  percentum  upon  the 
net  proceeds  of  the  Sales  of  the  Public  Lands. 


States. 


Date  Granting. 


United  States 
Statutes. 


Volume.      Page, 


Alabama 

Alabama  ._ 

Alabama 

Alabama ._ -. 

Alabama 

Alabama 

Arkan  sas 

Arkansas 

Colorado 

Florida 

Florida 

Iowa 

Iowa .-_ 

Iowa 

Iowa 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Indiana 

Indiana 

Kansas 

Louisiana 

Louisiana 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Mississippi 

Mississippi 

Mississippi 

Mississippi 

Mississippi 

Mississippi 

Michigan , 

Michigan.. 

Minnesota 

Minnesota 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

Ohio 

Ohio 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Wisconsin 

Wisconsin 

New  Hampshire 

Massachusetts 

Khode  Island... 

Connecticut 

New  York- 

New  Jersey.. 

Pennsylvania 

Delaware 

Maryland 

Virginia _. 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Oeorgia 

Kentucky 

Vermont 

Tennessee 

Maine 

District  of  Columbia 


2  per  cent,  September  4, 1841  _. 

3  per  cent,  March  2,  1819 

3  per  cent.  May  3, 1822 

3  per  cent,  July  4,  1836 

5  per  cent,  March  2,  1855 

10  per  cent,  September  4, 1841 . 

5  per  cent,  June  23, 1836 

10  per  cent,  September  4, 1841 . 

5  per  cent,  March  3,  1875 

5  per  cent,  March  3,  1845 

5  per  cent,  March  3,  1845 

5  per  cent,  March  3,  1845 

5  per  cent,  March  3,  1845 

5  per  cent,  December  28,  1846.. 

5  per  cent,  March  2,  1849 

5  per  cent,  April  18, 1818 

10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841  . 

3  per  cent,  April  11, 1818 

5  per  cent,  April  19,  1816 

10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 . 

5  per  cent.  May  4,  1858 

5  per  cent,  February  20,  1811 .. 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 . 

2  per  cent,  February  28,  1859  .. 

3  per  cent.  May  3,  1822 

5  per  cent,  March  6,  1820 

10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 . 

2  pel*  cent,  September  4,  1841 .. 

3  per  cent,  March  1, 1817 

3  per  cent.  May  3, 1822 

5  per  cent,  July  4,  1836 

5  per  cent,  March  3, 1857 

10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 . 

5  per  cent,  June  23,  1836. 

10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 . 
5  per  cent,  February  26, 1857  . . 

5  per  cent,  May  11, 1858 

5  per  cent,  April  19,  1864 

5  per  cent,  March  16,  1864 

3  per  cent,  March  3,  1803 

5  per  cent,  April  30,  1802 

10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 . 
5  per  cent,  February  14,  1859 .. 

5  per  cent,  August  6,  1846 

5  per  cent.  May  29,  1848 

10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 . 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 . 
10  per  cent,  September  4, 1841 . 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 . 
10  per  cent.  September  4, 1841 . 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 . 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 
10  per  cent,  September  4. 1841 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  18sl 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1881 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 
10  per  cent,  September  4,  1841 


70 
EXHIBIT  No.  11. 

House  of  Eepresentatives,  Forty-fifth  Congress,  second  session.    Report  No.  707. 

LANDS    LOCATED    ON    MILITARY    WARRANTS    IN    CERTAIN 

STATES. 

April  30,  1878.  Recommitted  to  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands 
and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Sapp,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  submitted  the  fol- 
lowing 

REPORT. 
[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  4239,] 

The  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  H. 
R.  No.  4239,  having  had  the  same  under  consideration,  do  make  the  fol- 
lowing report  thereon: 

The  bill  provides  for  the  payment  by  the  General  Government  to  the 
States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota, 
Iowa,  Nebraska,  Kansas,  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Flor- 
ida, Oregon,  Nevada,  and  Colorado,  five  per  centum  on  the  military  loca- 
tions of  lands  therein,  estimating  the  same  at  $1  25  per  acre.  Heretofore, 
the  five  per  centum  upon  this  class  of  lands  has  been  withheld  as  not  fall- 
ing within  the  purview  and  intent  of  the  stipulations  contained  in  the 
several  Acts  admitting  these  States  into  the  Union,  to  the  effect  that  the 
General  Government  would  pay  the  percentage  in  question  on  the  proceeds 
of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  for  and  on  account  of  certain  designated 
conditions  therein  specified,  which  were  to  be  binding  upon  and  observed 
by  the  States  as  members  of  the  Union.  The  nature  of  these  considera- 
tions may  be  stated,  summarily,  to  be  a  concession  not  to  tax  the  public 
lands;  not  to  tax  private  lands  for  the  space  of  five  years  after  date  of 
entry  in  some  seven  of  these  States ;  in  others  not  to  tax  lands  granted  for 
military  services  in  the  War  of  1812  for  three  years  from  date  of  patent; 
not  to  interfere  with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  soil,  nor  to  tax  the  non- 
resident proprietor  more  than  the  resident,  etc. 

This  compact,  made  at  the  time  these  States  were  admitted  into  the 
Union,  has  been  observed  and  kept  on  their  part  in  good  faith,  and  they 
claim  the  observance  of  like  good  faith  on  the  part  of  the  General  Govern- 
ment in  fulfilling  its  part  of  the  contract,  namely,  the  payment  of  the  five 
per  cent,  being  the  stipulated  consideration  that  induced  the  States  to  enter 
into  and  perform  their  part  of  the  contract.  That  the  Government  has 
done  so  on  all  sales  of  public  lands  for  cash  is  not  disputed.  But  the  non- 
payment of  the  five  per  cent  on  all  lands  upon  which  military  land 
warrants  have  been  located  is  not  denied,  and  it  is  claimed  that  the  Gov- 
ernment is  under  no  obligations  to  pay  the  same,  it  being  insisted  upon 
that  the  lands  so  taken  up  do  not  fall  within  the  compact,  while  the  States 
interested  maintain  that  the  Government  is  obliged  to  pay  this  five  per 
cent  on  all  lands  on  which  these  military  warrants  have  been  located,  and 
the  bill  under  consideration  is  for  the  purpose  of  requiring  such  payment 
to  be  made.  It  has  been  contended  that  the  five  per  cent  to  be  paid  to 
these  States  has  reference  to  cash  sales  of  the  public  lands,  and  none  other. 
The  States  interested  maintain  that  this  is  not  a  sound  interpretation  of 
the  obligations  assumed  by  the  Government,  and  some  of  the  reasons  for 
this  claim  will  be  stated. 


71 

The  several  grants  of  land  for  military  services  rendered  in  the  three 
great  wars  of  this  country,  namely,  the  Revolutionary  War,  the  War  of 
1812,  and  the  Mexican  War,  were  not  bounties  merely;  they  were  not  mere 
gratuities  given  by  the  Government  out  of  a  spirit  of  generosity  to  the  sol- 
diers who  served  in  these  wars;  they  were  not  granted  or  received  in  this 
spirit,  but  were  by  the  very  terms  of  most  of  the  Acts  authorizing  the  same, 
given  in  part  payment  for  military,  services.  They  entered  into  and  formed 
a  part  of  the  contract  of  enlistment.  The  object  of  these  grants  was  to 
facilitate  and  encourage  enlistments.  In  order  to  fill  up  the  rank  and  file 
of  the  army  rapidly,  Congress  offered  in  advance,  besides  specified  monthly 
wages  in  money,  an  additional  inducement  or  consideration  in  lands — not 
for  past  services,  but  for  services  thereafter  to  be  rendered.  The  land  war- 
rant to  be  received  was  as  much  a  part  of  the  stipulated  compensation  pro- 
vided for  by  the  law  under  which  the  enlistment  was  made,  and  entered 
into  the  contract  just  as  fully  between  the  soldier  and  the  Government,  as 
his  monthly  pay  did.  If  these  grants  had  all  been  made  after  the  rendi- 
tion of  the  military  services,  it  might  be  otherwise;  but  they  were  not. 
They  were  offered  as  a  part  of  the  compensation  that  would  be  paid  for 
such  services.  Whatever  differences  of  opinion  exists  as  to  whether  these 
grants  were  sales  or  not,  may  to  a  great  extent  be  attributed  to  a  misunder- 
standing of  the  term  "  bounty  "  as  applied  to  this  kind  of  reward  for  mili- 
tary services.  It  is  not  used  in  its  popular  sense  as  importing  a  gratuity, 
but  in  the  technical  sense  of  a  gross  sum  or  quantity,  given  in  addition  to 
the  monthly  stipend,  but  given  like  the  latter  in  consideration  of  and  as 
payment  for  services  to  be  rendered.  Thus  in  the  late  war,  in  order  to 
stimulate  enlistments,  a  pecuniary  "bounty" — that  is,  a  gross  sum  in  addi- 
tion to  the  monthly  wages — was  offered  by  the  Government  to  all  who 
would  enlist  in  the  military  service;  and  in  numerous  instances  further 
bounties  of  the  same  kind  were  offered  and  paid  by  counties  and  cities  in 
order  to  induce  enlistments  to  fill  up  their  respective  quotas  of  men.  Such 
offers,  when  accepted  and  acted  upon,  so  completely  constituted  contracts 
with  the  parties  enlisting  under  them,  that  in  repeated  instances  fulfill- 
ment thereof  has  been  enforced  by  the  Courts.  These  pecuniary  "boun- 
ties," by  which  enlistments  were  so  largely  procured  during  the  late 
rebellion,  occupy  precisely  the  same  attitude  as  respects  the  question  now 
under  consideration,  as  the  so  called  bounty  land  warrants  do.  Both  really 
were  simply  extra  allowances  offered  for  the  same  purpose,  and  when 
accepted  and  enlistments  made  thereunder,  they  became  ipso  facto  con- 
tracts which  any  Court  would  recognize  and  enforce.  In  this  way  the 
public  lands  were  made  available  as  a  resource  for  defraying  the  national 
burdens  just  as  effectually  as  if  they  had  been  converted  into  money,  and 
the  money  used  in  paying  the  enlisted  men.  It  was  an  exchange  of  one 
valuable  thing  for  another,  which  in  law  makes  it  a  case  of  sale,  to  con- 
stitute which  it  is  enough  that  the  title  to  property  is  parted  with  for  a 
valuable  consideration.  It  is  not  necessary  that  there  be  a  moneyed  con- 
sideration in  order  to  constitute  a  sale.  Any  other  valuable  consideration 
will  be  as  effectual  in  supporting.a  contract  and  in  making  a  sale,  which 
will  pass  the  title,  whether  it  be  merchandise,  other  property,  or  ser^dces. 
Suppose  one  man  employs  another  to  work  for  a  given  period  of  time,  under 
an  agreement  to  pay  him  monthly  wages  at  a  given  price  per  month  and 
forty  acres  of  land,  to  be  conveyed  when  the  period  of  service  expires,  it 
must  be  conceded  that  when  the  ser\dces  are  rendered  the  party  would  be 
as  much  entitled  to  the  land  as  he  would  be  to  the  stipulated  sum  per 
month,  and  this  would  as  clearly  be  a  sale  of  the  land  as  if  the  considera- 
tion therefor  had  been  money.    The  principle  involved  in  the  case  supposed 


72 

is  precisely  the  same  as  in  the  oae  under  consideration.  And  if  it  is  a  sale 
in  the  one  case,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  it  would  not  be  in  the  other.  But 
let  us  examine  this  character  or  mode  of  disposing  of  lands  by  the  United 
States,  as  constituting  a  "  sale  "  when  it  is  viewed  as  a  transaction  between 
the  Government  and  the  party  locating  the  warrant.  Instead  of  patenting 
specific  land  to  the  soldier  entitled  thereto,  in  virtue  of  his  military  ser- 
vices, the  Government  issued  to  him  it§  written  obligation,  payable  in  the 
agreed  quantity  of  land,  to  be  selected  by  him  from  the  whole  body  of 
lands  open  for  sale  and  entry  throughout  the  country.  These  obligations 
or  "  warrants"  were  made  assignable  by  law,  and  subject  to  sale  and  trans- 
fer in  the  market,  from  hand  to  hand,  by  mere  delivery.  In  this  way  they  ^ 
became  practically  a  species  of  Government  scrip  or  currency,  and  persons 
desirous  of  becoming  land  proprietors  could  and  did  go  into  the  market 
and  purchase  the  same,  and  with  them  buy  the  land  they  wanted;  and  in 
this  way  large  quantities  of  the  public  lands  were  disposed  of  wherever  the 
same  were  subject  to  sale  and  entry  at  the  different  Land  Offices.  Now,  it 
is  claimed  to  be  against  reason  and  common  usage  to  say  that  these  lands 
are  not  sold  because  the  Government  receives  in  payment  for  them,  instead 
of  cash,  its  own  obligations,  payable  in  land.  Can  it  be  considered  less  a 
case  of  sale  that  the  purchaser,  instead  of  paying  for  his  lands  in  green- 
backs, does  so  with  the  Government's  own  paper  obligations? 

The  chief  difference  in  the  two  descriptions  of  paper  is,  that  the  first  is 
available  for  purchasing  all  commodities,  indiscriminately,  while  the  latter 
is  limited  to  purchase  of  land  only.  Suppose  the  United  States  had  issued 
pecuniary  obligations,  i.  e.,  bonds  payable  to  bearer  at  a  future  day,  or  pay- 
able like  greenbacks,  whenever  the  Government  should  find  itself  able, 
but  with  the  proviso  that  they  should  be  receivable  at  par  in  payment  for 
public  lands,  how  would  the  case  of  lands  paid  for  with  such  bonds  differ 
from  the  present  case?  The  bonds  might  have  been  issued  like  land  war- 
rants, for  military  services,  or  for  any  other  consideration,  or  for  no  con- 
sideration. They  might  have  been  regarded  by  Congress  strictly  as  a 
gratuity  to  parties  thought  to  have,  for  any  reason,  deserved  well  of  their 
country.  The  motive  or  consideration  that  induced  or  authorized  the 
issuing  of  the  same  would  not  affect  the  question  whether  lands  entered 
and  paid  for  with  such  bonds  ought  to  be  considered  as  sold  or  not.  In 
both  cases  the  Government  would  have  received  in  such  disposition  of  its 
lands  its  own  valid  outstanding  obligations,  for  the  fulfillment  of  which  its 
faith  was  pledged,  and  the  surrender  of  which  by  the  holder  would  consti- 
tute an  ample  consideration,  both  legal  and  equitable,  for  the  conveyance. 
These  considerations  apply,  to  the  fullest  extent,  to  the  case  of  entries  of 
land  by  means  of  land  warrants.  For  it  is  immaterial  to  the  character  of 
this  transaction  for  what  consideration  such  obligation  was  issued.  Its 
legal  capability  of  assignment  has  practically  imparted  to  the  land  warrant 
a  negotiable  quality.  It  has  become  part  of  the  general  mass  of  securities 
passing  from  hand  to  hand  in  the  market.  The  purchaser  buys  it  relying 
on  the  faith  of  the  United  States  for  the  fulfillment  of  the  agreement  em- 
bodied in  it,  and  without  inquiry  as  to  the  consideration  in  which  it  origi- 
nated. In  this  connection  it  is  proper  to  state  that  Congress  has  treated 
these  warrants,  for  military  services,  as  money,  both  by  receiving  them  in 
payment  for  large  tracts  of  land  or  by  authorizing  their  conversion  into 
scrip,  and  then  receiving  this  scrip  in  payment  for  any  public  land,  wher- 
ever situate.  This  scrip  so  issued  in  lieu  of  land  warrants,  orjn  redemp- 
tion of  the  same,  has  always  been  treated  as  money  by  the  Government. 
It  has  always  been  received  in  payment  for  land  just  the  same  as  money; 
and  when  lands  have  been  taken  up  by  this  scrip,  representing  the  land 


73 

warrants,  the  Government  has  paid  the  five  per  cent  to  the  States  where  it 
was  situate,  while  the  per  cent  has  been  withheld  where  the  land  has  been 
taken  up  by  the  warrants  themselves.  We  think  no  good  reason  c^n  be 
assigned  for  this  distinction.  The  land  absorbed  by  either  class  of  paper 
is  precisely  the  same  in  effect,  so  far  as  the  Government  is  concerned,  and 
both  alike  discharge  its  obligations,  and  for  that  very  reason  the  land  so 
absorbed  by  both  classes  of  paper  should  be  treated  as  having  been  sold. 

Again,  on  March  2,  1855,  Congress  passed  an  Act  entitled  "  An  Act  to 
settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Ala- 
bama."    This  Act  provides: 

That  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  be  and  he  is  hereby  required  to  state 
an  account  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Alabama,  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining what  sum  or  sums  of  money  are  due  to  said  State,  heretofore  unsettled  under  the 
Act  of  March  2,  1819,  for  the  admission  of  Alabama  into  the  Union,  and  that  he  be  re- 
quired to  include  in  said  account  the  several  reservations  under  the  various  treaties  with 
the  Chickasaw,  Choctaw,  and  Creek  Indians  within  the  limits  of  Alabama,  and  allow  and 
pay  to  said  State  five  per  cent  thereon,  as  in  case  of  other  sales. 

Subsequently  to  this  Congress  passed  an  Act  entitled  "An  Act  to  settle 
certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Mississippi 
and  other  States,"  which  was  approved  March  3, 1857,  and  is  as  follows: 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  in  Congress 
assembled,  That  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  be  and  he  is  hereby  required 
to  state  an  account  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Mississippi,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  what  sum  or  sums  of  money  are  due  to  said  State,  heretofore  unset- 
tled, on  account  of  the  public  lands  in  said  State,  and  upon  the  same  principles  and 
allowance  as  prescribed  in  the  "  Act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States 
and  the  State  of  Alabama,"  approved  the  second  of  March,  1855;  and  that  he  be  required 
to  include  in  said  account  the  several  reservations  under  the  various  treaties  with  the 
Chickasaw  and  Choctaw  Indians  within  the  limits  of  Mississippi,  and  allow  and  pay  to 
the  said  State  five  per  centum  thereon,  as  in  case  of  other  sales,  estimating  the  lands  at 
the  value  of  $1  25  per  acre. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  said  Commissioners  shall  also  state  an  ac- 
count between  the  tinited  States  and  each  of  the  other  States  upon  the  same  principles ; 
and  shall  allow  and  pay  to  each  State  such  amount  as  shall  thus  be  found  due,  estimating 
all  lands  and  permanent  reservations  at  $1  25  per  acre. 

The  settlements  authorized  and  required  by  these  Acts  between  the  Gov- 
ernment and  the  States  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi,  and  the  payment  of 
the  five  per  cent  for  these  reservations,  estimating  the  land  at  $1  25  per 
acre,  are  a  clear  recognition  of  the  principle  contended  for  by  the  States 
named  in  the  bill  under  consideration.  The  fee  to  the  land  in  these  reser- 
vations was  granted  to  the  Indians,  either  out  of  good  will  and  to  encourage 
friendly  relations  or  in  part  consideration  of  their  possessory  right  to  large 
tracts  of  this  country,  surrendered  to  the  Government.  It  was  no  cash  sale 
of  the  lands  to  the  Indians.  So  the  military  land  warrants  were  granted 
to  the  soldiers,  either  as  a  grateful  acknowledgment  of  their  services  or  in 
part  payment  of  the  same ;  and  whether  one  or  the  other,  the  two  cases  are 
the  same  in  principle,  and  the  five  per  cent  should  be  paid  in  both  cases  or 
should  not  be  paid  in  either.  But  we  wish  to  call  especial  attention  to  the 
provisions  of  the  Act  with  reference  to  Mississippi,  as  we  think  all  ambi- 
guity in  respect  to  the  question  under  consideration,  if  there  be  any,  is 
removed  by  the  language  there  used;  for  if  Congress  meant  anything,  it 
would  seem  the  Commissioner,  by  that  Act,  is  required  to  do  three  things: 
First — He  is  to  state  an  account  between  the  United  States  and  Mississippi 
and  the  other  States,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what  sum  or  sums  of 
money  are  due  to  these  States,  heretofore  unsettled,  on  account  of  public 
lands  in  said  States.  Second — He  is  to  include  two  things  in  said  account, 
which  are,  all  lands  and  permanent  reservations,  estimating  the  same  at 


74 

$1  25  per  acre;  and,  third — he  is  to  pay  five  per  cent  thereon  as  in  cases 
of  other  sales.  If  Congress  did  not  intend  to  inchide  all  lands  upon  which 
military  land  warrants  had  been  located  as  well  as  permanent  reservation, 
we  are  unable  to  see  what  was  intended  by  the  language  employed  in  this 
Act.  We  think  it  must  be  admitted  that  this  account  was  to  include  all 
public  lands  on  which  the  five  per  cent  was  still  unsettled,  as  well  as  reser- 
vations. And  by  the  express  terms  of  the  Act,  this  necessarily  includes 
the  military  locations,  as  these  were  a  part  of  the  public  lands  on  which 
the  five  per  cent  had  not  been  paid.  If  these  lands  were  not  intended  to 
be  included,  what  lands  does  the  Act  refer  to?  It  cannot  be  the  lands  sold 
for  cash,  for  there  was  no  dispute  about  them.  The  Government  had  faith- 
fully complied  with  its  obligations  to  the  States  as  it  respects  these  cash 
sales,  and  had  paid  the  five  per  cent  on  all  the  lands  so  sold.  Neither  can 
it  refer  to  the  reservations,  for  they  were  fully  provided  for  by  the  first  sec- 
tion of  the  Act  by  name,  and  are  to  be  paid  for  upon  the  same  principles 
and  allowance  as  those  recognized  and  provided  for  in  the  case  of  the  State 
of  Alabama.  And  in  addition  to  these  reservations,  the  Government  is  to 
pay  on  account  of  all  public  lands  in  said  State  of  Mississippi  upon  the 
same  principles  and  allowance.  So  that  both  lands  and  reservations  are 
clearly  provided  for  in  this  first  section,  while  the  second  section  provides 
that  the  United  States  shall  state  an  account  with  the  other  States  upon 
the  same  principles,  and  shall  allow  and  pay  to  them  such  amount  as  shall 
be  found  due  on  account  of  all  lands  and  reservations,  estimating  the  same 
at  $1  25  per  acre.  So  that  other  lands  than  those  sold  for  cash  and  reser- 
vations must  be  referred  to  by  this  Act -in  order  to  give  its  provisions  force 
and  effect.  Indeed,  we  think  that  a  proper  construction  of  the  scope  and 
meaning  of  this  Act  of  Congress  would  include  all  lands  in  these  States 
disposed  of  by  the  Government  for  any  purpose  other  than  to  the  State 
itself,  or  by  the  consent  of  the  State.  That  it  is  broad  enough  to,  and  does, 
include  the  lands  in  question,  we  think  is  beyond  controversy.  And  to 
avoid  all  question  hereafter,  as  to  its  including  all  lands  disposed  of  by  the 
General  Government,  and  confining  it  to  cash  sales,  and  lands  located  for 
military  warrants,  your  committee  recommend  that  the  bill  be  amended  to 
that  effect,  and  that  the  several  States  named  be  required,  through  their 
Legislatures,  to  relinquish  all  claims  to  the  five  per  cent,  excepting  cash 
sales  and  those  on  which  land  warrants  have  been  and  shall  be  located. 
It  is  further  insisted  by  these  States  that  if  the  General  Government  is  not 
obligated  to  pay  the  five  per  cent  on  the  lands  in  dispute  by  the  terms 
of  the  contract  with  these  States  fairly  construed,  it  would  be  within  the 
power  of  the  Government  to  convey  all  the  public  lands,  in  any  State,  for 
military  services,  and  in  that  way  defeat  any  benefit  they  were  to  derive 
under  the  contract.  It  is  claimed  by  these  States,  that  as  they  were  to  have 
five  per  cent  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands,  they  were  to  be 
disposed  of  only  in  such  manner  as  would  enable  them  to  get  this  sum 
therefrom,  and  that  any  other  disposition  of  these  lands  defeats  the  consid- 
eration that  induced  them  to  enter  into  the  stipulations  provided  for  on 
their  part.  We  think  there  are  strong  reasons  for  this  position,  and  that 
the  Government  in  all  justice  cannot  dispose  of  the  public  lands  in  these 
States  for  military  services,  and  then  refuse  to  pay  to  them  the  per  cent 
provided  for 'by  the  compact.  Suppose  that  A  agrees  with  B  that  he  will 
pay  him  a  commission  of  five  per  cent  for  selling  a  section  of  land  at  a 
given  price,  and  after  making  this  agreement  he  directs  B  to  take  a  given 
quantity  of  merchandise  for  the  same,  which  B  does,  can  there  be  any 
doubt  that  B  is  entitled  to  the  commission  agreed  upon  for  making  the  sale 
because  the  mode  of  paying  for  the  same  is  changed  by  A  from  cash  to 


75 

merchandise?  And,  if  not,  is  not  the  Government  as  much  bound  under 
its  contract  with  these  States  to  pay  the  five  per  cent  agreed  upon,  where 
the  land  is  given  for  and  in  consideration  of  miUtary  services,  as  it  would 
be  if  the  sale  had  been  for  cash?  In  other  words,  the  contract  presupposes 
that  all  the  public  lands  will  be  so  sold  and  disposed  of  that  the  States  will 
realize  the  per  cent  agreed  upon;  and  that  no  disposition  of  them,  to  be 
made  in  such  manner  as  to  defeat  the  same  was  contemplated  at  .the  time, 
and  that  such  is  the  implication  arising  from  the  contract  itself.  Such  was 
clearly  the  view  taken  by  Congress  of  this  question  in  the  Acts  of  March  2, 
1855,  and  March  3,  1857.  Hence,  the  language  used,  "  all  lands  and  per- 
manent reservations f^  and,  as  if  not  to  be  misunderstood,  the  same  are  ^Ho 
he  valued  at  $1  25  per  acre^  Not  five  per  cent  of  the  proceeds  from  the 
cash  sales,  but  five  per  cent  on  all  lands  disposed  of  in  any  other  way,  esti- 
mating the  same  at  $1  25  per  acre.  Any  other  view  would  defeat  this  leg- 
islation, both  in  letter  and  in  spirit,  and  would  do  violence  to  every  rule  of 
construction  known  to  the  law.  It  could  not  have  been  within  the  contem- 
plation of  the  parties  that  Congress  might  defeat  the  payment  of  the  five 
per  cent  by  some  other  disposition  of  the  public  lands  than  a  sale  of  the 
same  for  cash,  for  if  it  had  been,  this  privilege  would  have  been  reserved, 
and  it  is  clearly  evident  no  right  whatever  was  reserved  to  make  any  dis- 
position of  the  same  that  would  relinquish  the  payment  of  this  five  per  cent. 
Such  being  the  contract,  what  is  the  duty  of  Congress  in  respect  to  this 
claim  made  by  these  States?    On  this  subject  Chancellor  Kent  says: 

That  a  law  embodying  a  contract  duly  passed  and  promulgated,  thenceforward  becomes 
the  law  of  the  land,  and  that  is  as  binding  upon  Congress  as  upon  the  people,  or  any  other 
branch  of  the  government,  or  as  any  other  contract  would  be  binding  upon  the  govern- 
ment executed  under  the  authority  of  law. 

The  obligations  imposed  upon  these  States  were  onerous.  The  loss  of 
revenue  in  not  being  allowed  to  exercise  the  power  of  taxation,  alone  would 
far  exceed  in  value  the  amount  that  will  be  gained  by  them  if  the  five  per 
cent  is  paid  on  all  public  lands  including  cash  sales  and  those  exchanged 
for  military  services.  After  careful  consideration  and  much  deliberation, 
jour  committee  have  reached  the  following  conclusions: 

First — That  the  several  enabling  Acts  admitting  the  new  States  into  the 
Union,  as  it  respects  the  payment  of  five  per  centum  on  the  sales  of  the 
public  lands,  do  embody  the  elements  of  a  legal  and  binding  contract 
between  said  States  and  the  National  Government,  which  both  parties  are 
entitled  to  have  carried  into  effect  in  the  same  manner  and  on  the  same 
principles  as  contracts  are  between  individuals. 

Second — That  the  agreement  to  pay  the  five  per  centum  has  a  sufficient 
consideration  in  the  concessions  made  by  these  States  in  the  acts  of  admis- 
sion into  the  Union,  in  the  surrender  of  revenue  and  otherwise,  and  that  it 
was  not  within  the  contemplation  of  the  parties  that  Congress  might  defeat 
the  right  of  the  States  to  the. five  per  cent  on  sales  by  adopting  a  policy  of 
disposing  of  the  public  lands  in  some  other  form  than  for  money,  and  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  Government  did  not  reserve  the  right  to  give  away  the 
public  lands  for  objects  and  uses  outside  of  the  States,  or  to  withhold  the 
payment  of  the  five  per  cent  on  lands  granted  for  military  purposes;  and 
third,  that  the  several  grants  of  lands  for  military  services  rendered  in  the 
three  great  wars  of  this  country,  namely,  the  Revolutionary  war,  the  war 
of  1812,  and  the  Mexican  war,  were  sales  in  the  sense  of  the  law  and  the 
meaning  of  the  compact  between  those  States  and  the  National  Government. 

Your  committee  would,  therefore,  recommend  that  the  bill  under  con- 
sideration be  amended  by  providing,  first,  that  no  certificates  provided  for 


76 

by  the  bill  shall  be  issued  to  any  State  until  said  State,  by  its  Legislature, 
shall  relinquish  or  release  all  further  claims  against  the  United  States  for 
five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands  other  than 
cash  sales  and  locations  by  military  land  warrants;  and  second,  that 
whatever  amount  may  be  found  due  the  State  of  Alabama,  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  Act,  shall,  when  paid  to  said  State,  be  held  in  trust  for  the 
use  and  benefit  of  the  University  of  said  State,  and  may  be  disposed  of  by 
the  Legislature  thereof  in  such  manner  as  may  be  deemed  for  the  best 
interests  of  said  University;  and  that  after  it  has  been  so  amended  it  pass. 
It  may  be  proper  to  add  that  the  mode  of  adjustment  and  settlement  pro- 
vided for  by  the  bill  does  not  make  it  burdensome,  but  easy  to  the  Govern- 
ment, as  no  money  is  required  to  be  paid  out  of  the  Treasury  for  that 
purpose.  The  bill  provides  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  be 
authorized  to  issue  and  deliver  to  the  Governors  of  the  States  named,  or 
their  agents,  United  States  certificates  of  indebtedness  of  the  denomina- 
tions of  $100,  $500,  and  $1,000  each,  as  the  Secretary  may  direct,  each  of 
which  is  to  run  twenty  years  from  its  date,  to  draw  interest,  payable  semi- 
annually, at  the  rate  of  three  and  sixty-five  hundredths  per  centum  per 
annum. 

It  is  believed  that  a  sum  far  in  excess  of  what  will  be  necessary  to  meet 
the  payment  of  these  certificates  will  be  realized  by  the  time  they  mature 
from  the  sales  of  the  public  land  belonging  to  the  Government  yet  remain- 
ing undisposed  of.  Your  committee  feel  the  more  strongly  inclined  to 
recommend  the  passage  of  this  bill,  from  the  fact  that  in  nearly  all  the 
States  the  revenue  arising  from  this  source  has  been  set  apart  for  educa- 
tional purposes,  in  which  the  nation  and  the  States  are  alike  interested. 


EXHIBIT  No.  11^. 

Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.    S.  67. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  December  5,  1881. 

Mr.  Voorhies  asked  and,  by  unanimous  consent,  obtained  leave  to  bring^ 
in  the  following  bill,  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the  Committee* 
on  Public  Lands: 

A  BILL 

To  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  ascertain  and  certify  the  amount 
of  land  located  with  military  warrants  in  the  States  described  therein,  and 
for  other  purposes. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
be  and  he  is  hereby  directed  to  ascertain  the  amount  of  public  lands 
entered  by  the  location  of  military  scrip  and  land  warrants  in  the  States 
of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Iowa, 
Nebraska,  Kansas,  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Florida, 
Oregon,  Nevada,  and  Colorado  (including  Virginia  military  and  United 
States  military  land  warrants  located  in  the  State  of  Ohio  after  her  admis- 
sion into  the  Union),  whose  enabling  Acts  of  admission  into  the  Union  con- 
tain a  stipulation  for  the  payment  of  five  per  centum  on  the  sales  of  public 
lands  therein;  and,  after  making  such  investigation,  it  shall  be  the  duty 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  certify  the  amount  so  found  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  the 


77 

Treasury,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to 
pay  to  such  States  five  per  centum  on  the  amount  of  lands  located  by  mil- 
itary scrip  and  land  warrants,  estimating  said  lands  at  the  rate  of  one 
dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre;  provided,  that  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  shall  exclude  from  his  estimate  and  certificate  all  lands  so  entered 
upon  which  the  said  five  per  centum  has  been  paid. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  au- 
thorized and  directed  to  pay  the  amounts  allowed  as  herein  provided  by 
issuing  and  delivering  to  the  Governors  of  the  States  named,  or  their  duly 
authorized  agents,  United  States  certificates  of  indebtedness,  said  certifi- 
cates to  be  of  the  denomination  of  one  hundred,  five  hundred,  and  one 
thousand  dollars  each,  as  the  Secretary  may  direct,  to  be  made  and  issued 
by  the  Secretary  in  such  form,  and  signed,  and  attested,  and  registered,  as 
he  shall  direct,  each  certificate  to  run  twenty  years  from  its  date,  to  draw 
interest,  payable  semi-annually,  at  the  rate  of  three  and  sixty-five  hun- 
dredths per  centum  per  annum,  and  be  payable,  both  principal  and  inter- 
est, when  due,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated, 
on  the  presentation  of  the  same;  provided,  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury may,  at  his  option,  pay  the  said  amounts  allowed,  or  any  part  thereof, 
out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated ;  and  what- 
ever may  be  necessary  to  carry  out  the  purposes  and  provisions  of  this  Act 
is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States  not  otherwise  appropriated ;  provided  further,  that  the  receipt  of  the 
certificates  of  indebtedness,  or  money,  provided  for  in  this  Act,  by  the  Gov- 
ernor of  any  one  of  the  States  named,  or  his  duly  authorized  agent,  shall 
operate  on  the  part  of  such  State  so  receiving  the  same  as  an  estoppel  of  any 
and  all  claims  which  such  State  may  have  against  the  United  States  for 
five  per  centum  on  account  of  any  lands  which  have  been,  or  may  hereaf- 
ter be,  granted  to  such  State,  corporation,  person,  or  persons,  for  the  pur- 
poses of  internal  improvements,  or  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  railroads  or 
canals,  or  for  any  other  purpose  whatsoever,  or  on  account  of  any  lands 
which  have  been,  or  may  hereafter  be,  entered  under  the  homestead  laws 
of  the  United  States. 


EXHIBIT  No.  12. 

Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.    S.  67. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  May  17,  1882. 
Ordered  to  lie  on  the  table  and  be  printed. 

AMENDMENTS 

Intended  to  he  proposed  by  Mr.  Farley  to  the  hill  {S.  67)  to  authorize  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  ascertain  and  certify  the  amount  of  land  located 
with  military  warrants  in  the  States  described  therein,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses, viz  : 

In  Section  1,  line  16,  after  the  word  "Treasury,"  insert  the  following: 
"  And  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  shall  also  ascertain  and  certify  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  the  amount  of  sales  of  public  lands  made  in 
the  State  of  California  since  the  admission  of  said  State  into  the  Union, 
including  the  amount  of  such  lands  entered  or  located  in  said  State  with 
military  scrip  or  land  warrants." 


78 

In  same  section,  line  21,  after  the  word  ''  acres,"  insert  the  following: 
"  And  to  pay  to  the  said  State  of  California  five  per  centum  of  the  pro- 
•ceeds  of  such  public  lands,  estimating  the  lands  entered  or  located  with 
military  scrip  or  land  warrants  at  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per 
acre;  and  money  received  by  said  State  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act 
shall  be  held  by  the  said  State  of  California  as  a  school  fund,  the  interest 
upon  which  shall  be  used  in  aid  of  the  support  of  the  common  schools  of 
said  State." 

Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session,    S.  67.    May  19, 1882. 

To'  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  ascertain  and  certify  the  amount 
of  land  located  with  military  warrants  in  the  States  described  therein,  and 
for  other  purposes. 

On  passage,  Yeas,  twenty-two;  Nays,  seventeen. 

Yeas— Allison,  Cameron  (Pa.),  Cameron  (Wis.),  Chilcott,  Cockrell,  Conger,  Davis  (111.), 
Farley,  Ferry,  Grover,  Hale,  Hill  (Col.),  Ingalls,  Jones  (Nev.),  McDill,  Miller  (Cal.),  Pugh, 
Sawyer,  Vest,  Voorhees,  Walker,  Windom. 

Nays— Anthony,  Blair,  Brown,  Call,  Camden,  Coke,  Davis  (W.  Va.),  Dawes,  Gorman, 
Harris,  Hawley,  Hoar,  Jackson,  Maxey,  Miller  (N.  Y.),  Morgan,  Saulsbury. 


EXHIBIT  No.  13. 

Page  461,  Laws  of  Iowa,  1857.    Number  16. 

A   JOINT    RESOLUTION    AND   MEMORIAL    IN    RELATION    TO 
THE  FIVE  PER  CENT  FUNDS. 

Be  it  resolved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  That  in  the 
opinion  of  this  General  Assembly  the  State  of  Iowa  is  entitled  under  and 
by  wtue  of  the  proposition  made  thereto  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  by  an  Act  supplemental  to  the  Act  for  the  admission  of  the  States 
of  Iowa  and  Florida  into  the  Union,  approved  March  3,  1845,  and  an  Act 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  entitled  an  Act  and  Ordinance 
accepting  the  proposition  made  by  Congress  on  the  admission  of  Iowa  into 
the  Union  as  a  State,  approved  January  15,  1849,  to  five  per  centum  on 
the  Government  price  of  all  land  sold  in  this  State  by  the  United  States  for 
military  land  warrants  since  January  15,  1849. 

Resolved,  That  the  Governor  of  this  State  be  authorized  and  requested 
to  take  such  steps  as  he  may  deem  best  to  procure  from  the  United  States 
the  moneys  as  claimed  to  be  due  this  State  by  the  foregoing  resolution, 
approved  January  23,  1857. 

State  of  Iowa,  Executive  Department,  ] 
Des  Moines,  February  21,  1873.      j 

The  resolution  of  the  General  Assembly  of  this  State,  passed  February 
19,  1873,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto  annexed,  is  made,  as  the  former  resolu- 
tion, a  part  of  this  contract;  except  so  far  as  Indian  reservations  are 
concerned,  on  which  the  said  Lowe  is  to  have  twenty-five  per  cent  on  the 
amount  which  may  be  collected. 

C.  C.  CARPENTER, 

Governor  of  Iowa. 
R.  P.  LOWE. 


79 

State  of  Iowa,  ss. 

The  following  contract  is  hereby  modified  so  as  to  authorize  Edson  A. 
Lowe  to  assist  the  said  Ralph  P.  Lowe,  his  father,  as  agent  thereunder,  and' 
in  case  of  the  latter's  death  or  inability  to  act,  he,  the  said  Edson  A. 
Lowe,  shall  become  such  agent  in  the  room  of  his  said  father,  and  be  enti- 
tled to  receive  the  same  benefit  and  pay  under  said  contract,  if  successful, 
that  the  said  Ralph  P.  Lowe  would  have  been  entitled  to. 

JNO.  H.  GEAR,  Governor  of  Iowa. 
Des  Moines,  Iowa,  October  8,  1881. 

JOINT   RESOLUTION   IN    RELATION   TO    STATE    AGENT,   HIS 

DUTIES,  ETC. 

Be  it  resolved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  That  the  Joint 
Resolution,  relative  to  the  appointment  of  an  agent  to  collect  from  the 
United  States  certain  moneys  due  to  the  State  of  Iowa,  approved  February 
21,  1872,  and  the  action  of  the  Governor  thereunder  in  appointing  Ralph 
P.  Lowe  State  Agent,  be  so  amended  as  to  embrace  the  claims  of  the  State 
of  Iowa,  on  account  of  other  lands  in  this  State  disposed  of  by  the  United 
States,  under  all  other  warrants  issued  for  military  purposes,  and  for  Indian 
reservations. 

Approved  February  20,  1873. 

I,  Josiah  T.  Young,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  hereby  certify 
that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  and  correct  copy  of  a  Joint  Resolution,  passed 
at  the  adjourned  session  of  the  Fourteenth  General  Assembly,  as  the  same 
appears  in  the  original  enrolled  resolution,  now  on  file  in  this  office,  and 
approved  February  20,  1873. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand,  and  caused  the 
great  seal  of  the  State  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  Des  Moines,  this  twentieth  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1873. 

{The  Great  Seal  of  the  State  of  Iowa.] 

JOSIAH  T.  YOUNG, 

Secretary  of  State. 

JOINT  RESOLUTION. 

Joint  Resolution  relative  to  the  appointment  of  an  agent  for  the  collec- 
tion of  amount  due  from  the  United  States  to  the  State  of  Iowa,  on  account 
of  lands  conveyed  to  non-commissioned  officers,  musicians,  and  privates,  in 
the  late  Mexican  war. 

Be  it  resolved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  That  the  Gov- 
ernor be  and  is  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  appoint  an  agent  in 
behalf  of  this  State  to  prosecute  to  final  decision  before  Congress,  or  in  the 
Courts,  the  claim  of  this  State  for  the  five  per  cent  due  to  the  same  from 
the  United  States  upon  the  lands  in  this  State,  disposed  of  under  military 
warrants  issued  to  non-commissioned  officers,  musicians,  and  privates,  in 
the  late  Mexican  war,  and  that  such  agent  shall  be  well  informed  in  the 
law,  and  shall  be  allowed  such  compensation  as  shall  be  agreed  upon 
between  the  Governor  and  himself,  and  to  be  paid  only  after  the  recovery 
of  the  claim  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  not  to  be  paid  out  of  any  other  fund  ; 
and  provided  that  the  State  shall  not  be  otherwise  liable  for  any  expenses 
whatever  attending  the  prosecution  of  such  claim. 

Approved  February  21,  1872. 


80 

I,  Ed.  Wright,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  hereby  certify  that 
the  above  and  foregoing  is  a  true  and  correct  copy  of  a  resolution  passed  by 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  approved  February  21,  1872,  as 
the  same  appears  from  the  original  roll  in  this  office. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  the  great 
seal  of  the  State  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  Des  Moines,  this  twenty-third  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1872. 

[seal.]  ED.  WRIGHT, 

Secretary  of  State. 

In  pursuance  of  the  object  and  intent  of  the  foregoing  resolution,  which 
is  made  a  part  of  this  agreement,  I,  C.  C.  Carpenter,  Governor  of  the  State 
of  Iowa,  do  by  these  presents  stipulate  with  R.  P.  Lowe  of  Keokuk,  Iowa, 
that,- in  consideration  that  he,  the  said  Lowe,  shall  diligently  and  to  the 
best  of  his  ability  prosecute  and  collect  the  claim  specified  in  said  resolu- 
tion, and  upon  the  terms  therein  contemplated,  that  he,  the  said  Lowe, 
shall  have  and  be  entitled  to  receive  for  his  services  in  the  premises  thirty- 
three  and  one  third  per  cent  upon  the  amount  so  collected,  provided  there 
shall  be  no  charge  whatever  to  the  State,  either  for  expenses  or  services,  in 
case  of  failure. 

February  24,  1872. 

C.  C.  CARPENTER, 

Governor  of  Iowa. 
R.  P.  LOWE. 
State  of  Iowa,  ss. 

The  foregoing  contract  is  hereby  modified  so  as  to  authorize  Edson  A. 
Lowe  to  assist  the  said  Ralph  P.  Lowe,  his  father,  as  agent  thereunder; 
and  in  case  of  the  latter's  death  or  inability  to  act,  he,  the  said  Edson  A. 
Lowe,  shall  become  such  agent  in  the  room  of  his  said  father,  and  be 
entitled  to  receive  the  same  benefit  and  pay  under  said  contract,  if  suc- 
cessful, that  the  said  Ralph  P.  Lowe  would  have  been  entitled  to. 

JNO.  H.  GEAR, 

Governor  of  Iowa. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  October  8,  1881. 

For  and  in  consideration  of  certain  lands  sold  and  conveyed  to  me  by 
Wm.  Leighton  and  Carleton  H.  Perry,  I  have  transferred  to  them,  the  said 
Leighton  and  Perry,  by  written  instruments  which  they  hold,  an  interest 
in  the  within  contract,  to  the  amount  of  $13,440. 

R.  P.  LOWE. 

The  following  is  a  memorandum  of  an  agreement,  bearing  date  thirty- 
first  dav  of  May,  A.  D.  1878,  by  which  I  have  assigned  to  Asa  Whitehead, 
of  Washington,  D.  C,  and  Elijah  G.  Coffin,  of  Springfield,  Ohio,  $12,000  of 
my  interest  in  the  within  agreements,  for  a  good  and  valuable  considera- 
tion, which  has  been  fully  paid  by  them. 

R.  P.  LOWE. 

Attest:  Wm.  A.  Van  Duzer. 

State  of  Iowa,  Executive  Department. 

To  all  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  greeting: 

Whereas,  Ralph  P.  Lowe,  of  Lee  County,  has  been  appointed,  in  pursu- 
ance of  and  in  accordance  with  Joint  Resolution  Number  Five,  of  the  Acts 


81 

and  Joint  Resolutions  of  the  Fourteenth  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of 
Iowa,  approved  February  21,  1872,  an  agent  in  behalf  of  this  State  to 
prosecute  to  final  decision,  before  Congress  or  in  the  Courts,  the  claim  of 
this  State  for  the  five  per  cent  due  to  the  same  from  the  United  States  upon 
the  lands  in  this  State  disposed  of  under  military  warrants,  issued  to  non- 
commissioned officers,  musicians,  and  privates  in  the  late  Mexican  war; 

Therefore,  know  ye,  that  in  pursuance  of  law,  I,  Cyrus  C.  Carpenter, 
Governor  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  the 
people  of  the  State,  do  hereby  commission  him  to  said  office,  with  full 
powers  and  authority  to  execute  and  fulfill  the  duties  thereof  according  to 
law,  and  to  enjoy  all  the  rights,  authorities,  privileges,  and  emoluments 
thereto  legally  appertaining  for  the  full  term  of  which  he  has  been  appointed, 
unless  this  commission  be  sooner  revoked  or  annulled  by  lawful  authority. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  to  be 
affixed  the  great  seal  of  the  State  of  Iowa.  Done  at  Des  Moines,  this 
twenty-fourth  day  of  February,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  seventy-two,  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  the  twenty-sixth,  and  of 
the  Independence  of  the  United  States,  the  ninety-sixth. 

By  the  Governor.  C.  C.  CARPENTER. 

[The  Great  Seal  of  the  State  of  Iowa.] 

ED.  WRIGHT, 

Secretary  of  State. 

I,  Henry  W.  Sohon,  a  United  States  Commissioner  for  the  District  of 
Columbia,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  copies  of  certain  papers 
have,  each  and  all,  been  by  me  carefully  compared  with  the  originals 
thereof  this  day  shown  me,  and  that  they  are,  each  and  all,  full,  true,  and 
correct  copies  of  said  originals,  which  are  as  follows,  to  wit : 

First — Modification  of  contract,  signed,  C.  C.  Carpenter,  Governor  of 
Iowa,  and  R.  P.  Lowe,  dated  February  21,  1873. 

Second — Modification  of  contract,  signed,  John  H.  Gear,  Governor  of 
Iowa,  dated  October  8,  1881. 

Third — Certified  copy  of  a  Joint  Resolution  of  General  Assembly  of  Iowa, 
approved  February  20,  1873. 

Fourth — Certificate  of  Josiah  T.  Young,  Secretary  of  State  of  Iowa,  to 
foregoing  copy,  dated  February  20,  1873. 

Fifth — Certified  copy  of  Joint  Resolution  of  General  Assembly  of  Iowa, 
approved  February  21,  1872. 

Sixth — Certificate  of  Ed.  Wright,  Secretary  of  State  of  Iowa,  to  foregoing 
copy,  dated  February  23,  1872. 

Seventh — Contract  between  C.  C.  Carpenter,  Governor  of  Iowa,  and  R.  P. 
Lowe,  dated  February  24,  1872. 

Eighth — Modification  of  contract,  signed  by  John  H.  Gear,  Governor  of 
Iowa,  dated  October  8,  1881. 

Ninth — Transfer  from  R.  P.  Lowe  to  William  Leighton  and  Carleton  H. 
Perry. 

Tenth — Assignment  of  R.  P.  Lowe  to  Asa  Whitehead  and  Elijah  G. 
Coffin,  memorandum  of  May  31,  1878. 

Eleventh — A  commission  to  Ralph  P.  Lowe,  signed  C.  C.  Carpenter, 
Governor  of  Iowa,  dated  February  24,  1872. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  this  eighth  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1886,  here- 


82 

unto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  my  seal,  at  the  City  of  Washington,  in  the 
District  of  Columbia. 

[seal.]  henry  W.  SOHON,. 

United  States  Commissioner,  District  of  Columbia. 


EXHIBIT  No.  14. 

Supreme].Court  of  the  United  States.    Nos.  3  and  4  (original).— October  Term,  1883. 


No.  3.     In  the  matter  of  The  State  of  Iowa, 
Petitioner. 

No.  4.     In  the  matter  of  The  State  of  Illinois, 
Petitioner. 


Petitions  for  Writs  of 
Mandamus. 


Under  the  Act  of  March  3,  1845,  ch.  76,  relating  to  the  admission  of  Iowa  into  the 
Union,  or  the  Act  of  April  18,  1818,  ch.  67,  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Illinois  into 
the  Union,  by  which  "five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  "  of  public  lands  lying  within  the 
State,  and  afterwards  "sold  by  Congress,"  shall  be  reserved  and  appropriated  for  certain 
public  uses  of  the  State,  the  State  is  not  entitled  to  a  percentage  on  the  value  of  lands 
disposed  of  by  the  United  States  in  satisfaction  of  military  land  warrants. 

[March  3,  1884.] 

Mr.  Justice  Gray  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court. 

These  are  petitions  filed  in  this  Court  by  each  of  the  States  of  Iowa  and 
Illinois,  at  the  relation  of  its  Governor,  relying  upon  the  provision  of  an 
Act  of  Congress  relating  to  its  admission  into  the  Union,  by  which  it  was 
agreed  that  "  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds"  of  lands  lying  within  the 
State,  and  afterwards  "sold  by  Congress,"  should  be  appropriated  for  cer- 
tain public  uses  of  the  State;  contending  that  the  State  was  thereby 
entitled  to  five  per  cent  of  the  value,  computed  at  the  rate  of  one  dollar 
and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre,  of  lands  disposed  of  by  Congress  in  satisfac- 
tion of  military  land  warrants;  and  praying  for  a  writ  of  mandamus  to  the 
Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  to  compel  him,  in  accordance 
with  Section  456  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  to  state  an  account  between  the 
United  States  and  the  State,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  sum  of 
money  so  due  to  the  State,  and  to  transmit  the  account  to  the  Comptroller 
of  the  Treasury  for  his  examination  and  action,  to  the  end  that  that  sum 
might  be  allowed  and  paid  by  the  United  States. 

The  provisions  of  the  Acts  of  Congress,  on  which  the  petitioners  rely,  are 
as  follows: 

The  sixth  section  of  the  Act  of  Congress  of  March  3,  1845,  ch.  76, 
supplemental  to  the  Act  of  the  same  day  by  which  the  State  of  Iowa  was 
admitted  into  the  Union,  contained,  among  the  propositions  offered  to  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  for  its  acceptance  or  rejection,  and  which,  if  ac- 
cepted under  the  authority  conferred  on  the  Legislature  by  the  Convention 
which  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  should  be  obligatory  upon  the 
United  States,  the  following: 

Fifth— That  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  sales  of  all  public  lands  lying  within 
the  said  State,  which  have  been  or  shall  be  sold  by  Congress  from  and  after  the  admission 
of  said  State,  after  deducting  all  the  expenses  incident  to  the  same,  shall  be  appropriated 
for  making  public  roads  and  canals  within  the  said  State,  as  the  Legislature  may  direct; 

frovided,  that  the  five  foregoing  propositions  herein  oflfered  are  on  the  condition  'that  the 
iCgislature  of  the  said  State,  by  virtue  of  the  x^owers  conferred  upon  it  by  the  Convention 
which  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  said  State,  shall  provide,  by  an  ordinance,  irrevoca- 
ble without  the  consent  of  the  United  States,  that  the  said  State  shall  never  interfere  with 
the  primary  disposal  of  the  soil  within  the  same  by  the  United  States,  nor  with  any  regu- 


88 

lations  Congress  may  find  necessary  for  securing  the  title  in  such  soil  to  the  bona  fide 
purchasers  thereof;  and  that  no  tax  shall  be  imposed  on  lands  the  property  of  the  United 
States;  and  that  in  no  case  shall  non-resident  proprietors  be  taxed  higher  than  residents; 
and  that  the  bounty  lands  granted,  or  hereafter  to  be  granted,  for  military  services  during 
the  late  war,  shall ,"^  while  they  continue  to  be  held  by  the  patentees  or  their  heirs,  remain 
exempt  from  any  tax  laid  by  order  or  under  the  authority  of  the  State,  whether  for  State, 
county,  township,  or  any  other  purpose,  for  the  term  of  three  years  from  and  after  the 
date  of  the  patents,  respectively.    (5  Stat.  790.) 

The  sixth  section  of  the  Act  of  Congress  of  April  18,  1818,  ch.  67,  to  ena- 
ble the  people  of  the  Illinois  Territory  to  form  a  Constitution  and  State 
Government,  and  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Illinois  into  the  Union, 
contained  among  the  propositions  offered  to  the  Convention  of  the  Territory, 
and  which,  if  accepted  by  the  Convention,  should  be  obligatory  upon  the 
United  States,  the  following: 

Third — That  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands  lying  within  such  State,  and 
which  shall  be  sold  by  Congress  from  and  after  the  first  day  of  January,  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  nineteen,  after  deducting  all  expenses  incident  to  the  same,  shall  be 
reserved  for  the  purposes  following,  viz. :  two  fifths  to  be  disbursed,  under  the  direction  of 
Congress,  in  making  roads  leading  to  the  State;  the  residue  to  be  appropriated  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  State,  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  of  which  one  sixth  part  shall 
be  exclusively  bestowed  on  a  college  or  university;  provided,  always,  that  the  four  foregoing 
propositions  herein  offered,  are  on  the  conditions  that  the  convention  of  the  said  State 
shall  provide,  by  an  ordinance,  irrevocable  without  the  consent  of  the  United  States,  that 
every  and  each  tract  of  land  sold  by  the  United  States  from  and  after  the  first  day  of  Jan- 
uary, one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  nineteen,  shall  remain  exempt  from  any  tax  laid 
by  order  or  under  any  authority  of  the  State,  whether  for  State,  county,  or  township,  or 
arij'^  other  purpose  whatever,  for  the  term  of  five  years  from  and  after  the  day  of  sale; 
anti  further,  that  the  bounty  lands  granted,  or  hereafter  to  be  granted,  for  military  services 
during  the  late  war,  shall,  while  they  continue  to  be  held  by  the  patentees  or  their  heirs, 
remain  exempt,  as  aforesaid,  from  all  taxes,  for  the  term  of  three  years  from  and  after 
the  date  of  the  patents  respectively;  and  that  all  the  lands  belonging  to  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  residing  without  the  said  State,  shall  never  be  taxed  higher  than  lands 
belonging  to  persons  residing  therein.    (3  Stat.  430, 431.) 

By  the  Act  of  Congress  of  March  2,  1855,  ch.  139,  entitled  "  An  Act  to 
settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Alabama," 
it  was  enacted  as  follows: 

That  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  be  and  he  is  hereby  required  to 
state  an  account  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Alabama,  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  what  sum  or  sums  of  money  are  due  to  said  State,  heretofore  unsettled, 
under  the  sixth  section  of  the  Act  of  March  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  nineteen,  for 
the  admission  of  Alabama  into  the  Union ;  and  that  he  be  required  to  include  in  said 
account  the  several  reservations  under  the  various  treaties  with  the  Chickasaw,  Choctaw, 
and  Creek  Indians  within  the  limits  of  Alabama,  and  allow  and  pay  to  said  State  five  per 
centum  thereon,  as  in  case  of  other  sales.    (10  Stat.  630.) 

By  the  Act  of  June  8,  1857,  ch.  104,  entitled  "An  Act  to  settle  certain 
accounts  between  the  United  States  and  State  of  Mississippi  and  other 
States,"  it  was  enacted  as  follows: 

Section  1.  That  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  be  and  he  is  hereby 
required  to  state  an  account  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Mississippi,  for 
the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what  sum  or  sums  of  money  are  due  to  said  State,  heretofore 
unsettled,  on  account  of  the  public  lands  in  said  State,  and  upon  the  same  principle  of 
allowance  and  settlement  as  prescribed  in  the  "Act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between 
the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Alabama,"  approved  the  second  March,  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  fifty-five;  and  that  he  be  required  to  include  in  said  account  the  several  reserva- 
tions under  the  various  treaties  with  the  Chickasaw  and  Choctaw  Indians  within  the 
limits  of  Mississippi,  and  allow  and  pay  to  the  said  State  five  per  cent  thereon,  as  in  case 
of  other  sales,  estimating  the  lands  at  the  value  of  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per 
acre. 

Sec,  2.  That  the  said  Commissioner  shall  also  state  an  account  between  the  United 
States  and  each  of  the  other  States  upon  the  same  principles,  and  shall  allow  and  pay  to 
.  each  State  such  amount  ai;  shall  thus  be  found  due,  estimating  all  lands  and  permanent 
reservations  at  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre.    (11  Stat.  200.) 


84 

Each  petition  alleged  that  the  State  had  accepted  the  propositions,  and 
faithfully  kept  and  performed  on  its  part  the  conditions  set  forth  in  the 
Act  of  admission;  that  prior  to  the  dates  of  the  passage  of  the  Acts 
of  1855  and  1857  respectively,  the  five  per  cent  on  the  cash  sales  of 
the  public  lands  lying  within  the  States  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi 
had  been  regularly  and  periodically  paid  to  those  States  respectively,  so 
that  at  those  dates  there  were  no  unsettled  accounts  growing  out  of  the 
five  per  cent  clause  of  the  Acts  for  the  admission  of  those  States  into 
the  Union,  except  for  lands  entered  and  purchased  with  military  land 
warrants;  and  that  by  the  Act  of  1857  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  the  General  Land  Office,  when  required  to  do  so,  to  state  an 
account  between  the  United  States  and  each  State  upon  the  same  princi- 
ples of  allowance  as  prescribed  in  the  Act  of  1855,  and  by  that  Act  it  was 
his  duty,  upon  proper  application,  to  state  such  an  account  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  what  sum  or  sums  of  money,  theretofore  unsettled,  under 
the  Act  for  the  admission  of  the  State  into  the  Union,  were  due  to  it  on 
account  of  lands  lying  within  the  State,  disposed  of  by  the  United  States 
for  or  in  the  satisfaction  and  redemption  of  military  land  warrants,  issued 
by  the  United  States  for  military  services. 

Each  petition  further  alleged  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
in  disposing  of  the  public  lands  by  sale  in  this  and  other  Western  States, 
adopted  two  methods:  one  for  cash;  the  other  for  the  redemption  of  its  out- 
standing military  warrants  or  obligations,  calling  for  a  specific  quantity  of 
land,  issued  to  the  soldiers  who  had  enlisted  and  served  in  the  different  wars 
of  the  country,  under  statutes  enacted  in  advance  of  their  enlistment,  and 
as  a  compensation  for  their  military  services. 

Each  petition  suggested  that  by  the  Act  of  August  14,  1848,  ch.  180  (9 
Stat.  332),  military  land  warrants  were  made  receivable,  at  the  rate  of 
one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre  for  the  number  of  acres  therein  con- 
tained, in  payment  for  any  of  the  public  lands  subject  to  private  entry; 
and  that  by  the  Act  of  March  22,  1852,  ch.  19  (10  Stat.  3),  all  military 
land  warrants,  theretofore  and  thereafter  issued,  were  made  assignable  by 
the  persons  to  whom  they  were  issued,  and  also  made  receivable  from  their 
assignees,  at  the  rate  aforesaid  per  acre,  in  payment  for  any  of  the  public 
lands  located  and  taken  up  under  the  preemption  laws  of  the  United 
States. 

Each  petition  further  alleged  that  the  five  per  cent  had  been  allowed 
and  paid  to  the  petitioner,  at  stated  and  proper  periods,  on  sales  for  cash, 
but  had  been  withheld  on  lands  located  and  purchased  with  military  land 
warrants;  that  the  sum  so  withheld  amounted  to  $881,006  60  in  the  case 
of  Iowa,  and  $595,853  31  in  the  case  of  Illinois;  that  the  respondent,  though 
formally  requested,  had  refused  to  state  an  account  as  prayed  for;  and  that 
the  duty  of  stating  such  an  account  was  purely  ministerial  and  mandatory 
in  its  character,  leaving  no  room  for  the  exercise  of  his  own  judgment  and 
discretion  in  its  performance. 

Upon  each  of  these  petitions  a  rule  to  show  cause  was  granted  at  the  last 
term.  The  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  at  this  term  filed 
an  answer,  in  the  nature  of  a  return  to  each  rule,  admitting  that  upon  the 
facts  stated  in  the  petition,  as  modified  and  explained  by  the  facts  set 
forth  below,  he  Tefused  to  state  the  account  prayed  for,  and  alleging  that 
the  grounds  of  his  refusal  were  these: 

First — That  neither  the  Act  of  Congress  relating  to  the  admission  of  the 
State  into  the  Union,  nor  the  Acts  of  1855  and  1857,  authorized  the  State 
to  claim  a  percentage  upon  public  lands  disposed  of  hy  the  United  States 
to  the  holders  of  bounty  land  warrants. 


85 

Second — That  the  meaning  of  those  statutes  had  been  established,  as 
between  the  parties,  by  the  contemporaneous  and  continuous  construction 
thereof  by  the  General  Land  Office  and  the  State  in  numerous  and  impor- 
tant transactions,  each  of  which  suggested  a  question,  if  one  existed,  as  to 
their  construction. 

In  the  case  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  the  answer  alleged  that  between  August, 
1848,  and  July,  1858,  eleven  different  settlements  had  been  made  in  the 
General  Land  Office  for  the  percentage  due  to  the  State,  covering  in  all 
the  sum  of  $580,710  49,  in  none  of  which  was  the  present  claim  suggested, 
although  from  time  to  time  during  that  period  large  amounts  of  the  public 
lands  lying  within  the  State  had  been  disposed  of  by  the  United  States  to 
the  holders  of  such  warrants;  that  this  contemporaneous  practical  con- 
struction had  governed  all  transactions  with  the  nineteen  States  interested 
in  the  statutory  provision  under  consideration;  that  on  September  7,  1858, 
the  State  of  Iowa  made  a  formal  demand  upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
as  the  official  superior  of  the  then  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office,  to  be  allowed  the  percentage  now  claimed;  and  that  its  demand 
was  refused,  for  the  reason  stated  by  the  Secretary  in  the  following  letter 
to  the  Governor  of  Iowa: 

Department  of  the  Interior,  September  20, 1858. 

In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  seventh  instant,  in  relation  to  the  application  for  an 
allowance  of  five  per  centum,  claimed  to  be  due  the  State  of  Iowa  on  military  land  war- 
rant locations,  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that,  in  my  opinion,  the  Act  of  1847,  to  which 
frou  refer,  is  a  bounty  land  Act,  and  that  no  distinction  can  properly  be  made  between 
ocations  made  undcT  it  and  those  made  under  other  bounty  land  laws.  The  location  of 
warrants  issued  under  the  Act  of  1847,  is  not  considered  as  constituting  a  sale  of  the 
public  lands,  as  contemplated  by  the  Act  admitting  Iowa  into  the  Union.  That  Act 
appropriated  fi\^e  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  sales  of  all  puT^lic  lands  for  making  pub- 
lic roads  and  canals  within  the  State.  There  being  no  net  proceeds  accruing  from  loca- 
tions by  military  land  warrants,  the  allowance  of  five  per  centum  on  such  locations  can- 
not be  regardedas  having  been  appropriated  or  provided  for  by  law\ 

J.  THOMPSON,  Secretary. 
Governor  R.  P.  Lowe,  Iowa. 

The  answer  in  the  case  of  the  State  of  Iowa  further  alleged  that  this 
was  the  only  demand  ever  made  by  the  State  of  Iowa,  or  by  any  other 
State,  upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  or  upon  the  Commissioner  of  the 
General  Land  Office,  in  accordance  with  the  claim  now  set  up;  and  that 
the  State  of  Iowa  had  ever  since  practically  acquiesced  in  the  construc- 
tion suggested  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  had  confined  its  efforts 
to  applications  to  Congress  for  a  change  in  the  statutes. 

In  the  case  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  answer  alleged  that  from  Novem- 
ber, 1830,  to  September,  1863,  thirty-three  different  settlements  had  been 
made,  covering  in  all  the  sum  of  $711,744  82,  and  of  which  that  made  in 
1863,  for  $1,565  80,  was  for  Indian  reservations  only,  in  none  of  which  was 
the  present  claim  suggested,  although  from  time  to  time  during  fifteen  or 
more  years  of  that  period  large  amounts  of  the  public  lands  lying  within 
the  State  were  disposed  of  by  the  United  States  to  holders  of  bounty  land 
warrants. 

Each  answer  concluded  by  denying  that  the  petitioner,  in  any  view  of 
the  case,  was  entitled  to  a  writ  of  mandamus. 

The  first  question  argued  in  each  of  these  cases  may  be  shortly  stated 
thus:  Is  the  State,  under  the  compact  made  with  it  by  Congress  at  the 
time  of  its  admission  into  the  Union,  by  which  "  five  per  cent  of  the  net 
proceeds"  of  public  lands  lying  within  the  State,  and  "  sold  by  Congress" 
after  such  admission,  shall  be  reserved  and  appropriated  for  the  benefit  of 
the  State,  entitled  to  a  percentage  on  the  value  of  lands,  not  sold  by  the 


86 

United  States  for  cash,  but  disposed  of  by  the  United  States  in  satisfaction 
of  military  land  warrants  ? 

This  question  is  rendered  important  by  the  large  sums  of  money  involved, 
and  by  the  fact  that  similar  stipulations  are  contained  in  Acts  passed  by 
Congress  relating  to  seventeen  other  western  or  southern  States,  beginning 
with  Section  7  of  the  Act  of  April  30,  1802,  Chapter  40,  for  the  admission 
of  the  State  of  Ohio  into  the  Union.     (2  Stat.  175.) 

Upon  full  consideration  of  the  question,  with  the  aid  of  the  able  argu- 
ments of  counsel,  the  Court  is  of  opinion  that  lands  disposed  of  by  the 
United  States  in  satisfaction  of  military  land  warrants  are  not  sold,  within 
the  meaning  of  the  statutes  upon  which  the  petitioners  rely. 

A  sale,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  is  a  transfer  of  property  for  a 
fixed  price  in  money  or  its  equivalent.  When  property  or  money  is  trans- 
ferred or  paid  as  a  compensation  for  service,  the  property  or  money  may  be 
said  to  be  the  price  of  the  service;  but  it  can  hardly  be  said  that  the  ser- 
vice is  the  price  of  the  property  or  money,  or  that  the  property  or  money  is 
sold  to  the  person  performing  the  service.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the  pay 
of  an  officer  or  soldier  in  the  army  or  navy  is  sold  to  him  by  the  Govern- 
ment in  consideration  of  a  price  paid  by  him. 

Land  or  money,  other  than  current  salary  or  pay,  granted  by  the  Gov- 
ernment to  a  person  entering  the  military  or  naval  ser\dce  of  the  country, 
has  always  been  called  a  bounty;  and  while  it  is  by  no  means  a  gratuity, 
because  the  promise  to  grant  it  is  one  of  the  considerations  for  which  the 
soldier  or  sailor  enters  the  service,  yet  it  is  clearly  distinguishable  from 
salary  or  pay  measured  by  the  time  of  service.  For  example,  it  was  held 
by  Lord  Mansfield  and  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  in  1874,  that  though 
the  master  of  an  apprentice  was  entitled  by  the  Act  of  Parliament  of  2 
and  3  Anne,  Chapter  6,  Section  17,  to  the  wages  of  his  apprentice  enlisting 
into  the  navy,  yet  the  apprentice's  share  of  prize  money  belonged  to  him- 
self, and  not  to  his  master,  because  it  was  not  wages,  but  the  bounty  of  the 
crown.  {Carsan  v.  Watts,  3  Doug.  350;  Fades  v.  Vandeput,  4  Doug.  1.) 
Upon  like  grounds,  it  has  been  held  that  bounty  money  .paid  by  the  United 
States,  or  by  a  State,  city,  or  town,  upon  the  enlistment  of  a  minor  as  a 
soldier,  during  the  recent  war,  belonged  to  him,  and  not  to  his  father  or 
master.  (Banks  v.  Conant,  14  Allen,  497;  Kelly  v.  Sprout,  97  Mass.  169. 
See  also  Alexander  v.  Wellington,  2  Russ.  &  Myl.  35,  56,  64.) 

The  learned  counsel  for  the  State  of  Iowa  referred  to  General  Washington's 
Circular  Letter  of  June  8, 1783,  to  the  Governors  of  the  States,  and  especially 
to  the  passage  in  which  he  insisted  that  the  half  pay  and  commutation 
promised  by  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  to  the  officers  of  the  army, 
during  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  "  should  be  viewed,  as  it  really  was,  a 
reasonable  compensation  offered  by  Congress,  at  a  tinT,e  when  they  had 
nothing  else  to  give,  to  the  officers  of  the  army  for  services,  then  to  be  per- 
formed ;  it  was  the  only  means  to  prevent  a  total  dereliction  of  the  service ; 
it  was  a  part  of  their  hire;  I  may  be  allowed  to  say,  it  was  the  price  of  their 
blood  and  of  your  independency;  it  is  therefore  more  than  a  common  debt; 
it  is  a  debt  of  honor;  it  can  never  be  considered  as  a  pension  or  gratuity, 
nor  be  canceled  until  it  is  fairly  discharged."  But  in  the  very  next  para- 
graph he  spoke  of  "the  bounties  many  of  the  soldiers  have  received," 
"  besides  the  donation  of  lands." 

The  question  before  us  is  not  whether  the  promise  by  the  Government  of 
a  bounty  in  land  or  money  to  persons  entering  the  military  service  is  a 
contract  for  valuable  consideration;  but  whether,  when  carried  into  effect, 
it  constitutes  a  sale  by  the  Government;  and  it  is  quite  clear  that  land 
granted  by  way  of  reward  for  military  services  has  never  been  treated,  in 


87 

the  legislation  of  the  United  States  upon  the  subject,  as  sold,  but  has  always 
been  considered  as  analogous  to  money  paid  in  a  gross  sum  by  way  of 
bounty. 

By  the  resolution  of  September  16, 1776,  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation 
resolved  that  "twenty  dollars  be  given  as  a  bounty"  to  each  non-commis- 
sioned officer  and  private  soldier  enlisting  to  serve  during  the  war,  and  that 
"Congress  make  provision  for  granting  lands"  to  officers  and  soldiers  in 
certain  proportions;  "  such  lands  to  be  provided  by  the  United  States,"  and 
any  necessary  expenses  in  procuring  them  to  be  paid  and  borne  by  the 
United  States  in  the  same  proportion  as  the  other  expenses  of  the  war.  (2 
Journals  of  Congress,  357.) 

The  Act  of  Virginia  of  December  20,  1783,  to  cede  the  Northwest  Terri- 
tory to  the  United  States,  and  the  deed  of  cession  of  March  1,  1784,  were 
upon  the  following  conditions:  That  the  territory  so  ceded  should  be  laid 
out  and  formed  into  States,  to  be  admitted  members  of  the  Federal  Union. 
That  "a  quantity,  not  exceeding  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  acres  of 
land,  promised  by  this  State,  shall  be  allowed  and  granted"  to  General 
George  Rogers  Clark  and  his  officers  and  soldiers.  "That  in  case  the 
quantity  of  good  lands  on  the  southeast  side  of  the  Ohio,  upon  the  waters 
of  the  Cumberland  River,  and  between  the  Green  River  and  Tennessee 
River,  which  have  been  reserved  by  law  for  the  Virginia  troops  upon  Con- 
tinental establishment,  should,  from  the  North  Carolina  line  bearing  in 
further  upon  the  Cumberland  lands  than  was  expected,  prove  insufficient 
for  their  legal  bounties,  the  deficiency  should  be  made  up  to  the  said  troops 
in  good  lands,  to  be  laid  off"  between  the  rivers  Scioto  and  Little  Miami,  on 
the  northwest  side  of  the  river  Ohio,  in  such  proportions  as  have  been 
engaged  to  them  by  the  laws  of  Virginia.  That  all  the  lands  within  the 
territory  so  ceded  to  the  United  States,  and  not  reserved  for  or  appropri- 
ated to  any  of  the  before  mentioned  purposes,  or  disposed  of  in  bounties  to 
the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  American  army,  shall  be  considered  as  a  com- 
mon fund  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  such  of  the  United  States  as  have 
become  or  shall  become  members  of  the  confederation  or  federal  alliance 
of  the  said  States."     (1  Constitutions  and  Charters,  427,  428.) 

The  Acts  of  Congress,  under  the  Constitution,  containing  grants  of  land 
or  money  to  soldiers,  have  habitually  and  repeatedly  spoken  of  them  as 
bounties,  using  the  words  "bounty  of  three  months'  pay  and  one  hundred 
and  sixty  acres  of  land;"  "military  bounty  lands;"  "military  land  boun- 
ties;" "bounty  in  money  and  land;"  "money  bounty;"  "bounty  of  one 
hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land;"  "bounty  in  land;"  "bounty  right;" 
"  bounty  land;"  and  "  military  land  bounty."  (Acts  of  December  24,  1811, 
ch.  10,  §  2;  January  11, 1812,  ch.  14,  §  12;  May  6, 1812,  ch.  77;  December 
12,  1812,  ch.  4,  §  3;  2  Stat.  669,  673,  729,  788;  January  28,  1814,  ch.  9,  §  2; 
February  10,  1814,  ch.  11,  §  4;  December  10,  1814,  ch.  10,  §§  3-5;  3  Stat. 
96,  97,  147;  February  11,  1847,  ch.  8,  §  9;  September  28,  1850,  ch.  85;  9 
Stat.  125,  520.  See  also  French  v.  Spencer,  21  How.  228;  Maxwell  v.  Moore, 
22  How.  185.)  They  have  never  spoken  of  such  grants  of  lands  as  sales, 
or  of  the  lands  granted  as  sold. 

The  very  provisions  of  the  Acts  for  the  admission  of  the  States  of  Illinois 
and  Iowa  into  the  Union,  which  are  the  foundation  of  the  claims  now  urged, 
clearly  mark  the  distinction  between  lands  sold  for  money,  and  bounty 
lands  granted  for  military  services. 

In  the  Illinois  Act,  the  agreement  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  is 
that  "  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands  lying  within  such  State, 
and  which  shall  be  sold  by  Congress,"  "  shall  be  reserved,"  part  "to  be  dis- 
bursed," under  the  direction  of  Congress,  in  making  roads  leading  to  the 


State,  and  the  rest  "  to  be  appropriated,"  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State, 
for  the  encouragement  of  learning.  And  among  the  conditions  to  be  per- 
formed on  the  part  of  the  State  are:  First — "that  every  and  each  tract  of 
land  sold  by  the  United  States"  shall  remain  exempt  from  all  State  taxa- 
tion for  "five  years  from  and  after  the  day  of  sale."  Second — "that  the 
bounty  lands  granted,  or  hereafter  to  be  granted,  for  military  services  during 
the  late  war,  shall,  while  they  continue  to  be  held  by  the  patentees  or  their 
heirs,"  be  exempt  from  State  taxation  for  "  three  years  from  and  after  the 
date  of  the  patents  respectively."  To  hold  that  "lands  sold  by  Congress" 
included  "  bounty  lands  granted  for  military  services  "  would  make  these 
two  conditions  contradictory  of  each  other;  for  "  every  and  each  tract  of  land 
sold  by  the  United  States"  was  to  be  absolutely  exempt  from  State  taxa- 
tion for  five  years,  whereas,  military  bounty  lands  were  to  be  exempt  only 
while  held  by  the  patentees  or  their  heirs,  and  not  exceeding  three  years. 

The  Iowa  Act  manifests  the  same  distinction;  for,  while  it  omits  the 
provision  exempting  "lands  sold  by  the  United  States"  from  State  tax- 
ation, it  retains  the  provision  exempting  from  taxation  "  bounty  lands 
granted  for  military  services;"  and  it  emphasizes  the  meaning  of  the  lead- 
ing clause  of  the  proposition,  by  inserting  therein  the  words  "  of  sales,"  so 
as  to  read  "five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  sales  of  all  public  lands, 
lying  within  the  State,  which  have  been  or  shall  be  sold  by  Congress  from 
and  after  the  admission  of  said  State,  after  deducting  all  the  expenses  inci- 
dent to  the  same,  shall  be  appropriated  for  making  public  roads  and  canals 
within  the  said  State,  as  the  Legislature  may  direct." 

When  each  of  these  Acts  speaks  of  lands  "  sold  by  Congress,"  "five  per 
cent  of  the  net  proceeds  "  of  which  shall  be  reserved,  and  be  "  disbursed  "  or 
"  appropriated  "  for  the  benefit  of  the  State  in  which  the  land  lies,  it  evi- 
dently has  in  view  sales  in  the  ordinary  sense,  from  which  the  United  States 
receive  proceeds,  in  the  shape  of  money  payable  into  the  Treasury,  out  of 
which  the  five  per  cent  may  be  reserved  and  paid  to  the  State ;  and  does 
not  intend  to  include  lands  promised  and  granted  by  the  United  States  as 
a  reward  for  military  service,  for  which  nothing  is  received  into  the  Treas- 
ury. The  question  depends  upon  the  terms  in  which  the  compact  between 
the  United  States  and  each  State  is  expressed,  and  not  upon  any  supposed 
equity  extending  those  terms  to  cases  not  fairly  embraced  within  their  mean- 
ing. 

From  the  very  beginning  of  our- existence  as  a  nation,  the  reward  of  mil- 
itary service  has  been  treated  as  a  national  object  and  a  public  use,  to 
which  the  national  domain  might  justly  and  lawfully  be  applied.  As  new 
States  have  been  successively  formed  out  of  the  territory  of  the  United 
States,  and  admitted  into  the  Union,  the  Acts  of  admission  have  reserved, 
for  the  making  of  public  highways  and  other  public  uses  of  the  State,  a 
twentieth  part  of  the  net  proceeds  of  public  lands  lying  within  the  State, 
and  afterwards  sold  by  the  United  States.  But  public  lands  taken  up  on 
military  land  warrants  issued  under  general  laws,  passed  for  the  national 
object  of  encouraging  and  rewarding  military  service,  and  not  limited  to 
any  particular  State,  have  no  more  been  regarded  as  lands  sold,  for  any 
portion  of  the  value  of  which  the  National  Government  should  account  to 
the  State  in  which  the  lands  are  actually  taken  up,  than  lands  reserved 
and  used  for  forts,  arsenals,  or  lighthouses. 

Some  reliance  is  placed  by  the  petitioners  upon  the  Acts  of  Congress  of 
August  14,  1848,  ch.  180,  and  March  22,  1852,  ch.  19,  by  which  military 
land  warrants  are  made  assignable,  and  are  also  made  receivable,  either 
from  the  original  grantee  or  from  his  assignee,  in  payment  for  public  lands, 
at  the  rate  of  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre.     But  the  promise 


89 

of  the  United  States  is  made  to  the  soldier  at  the  time  of  his  entering  the 
service,  and  the  grant,  in  execution  of  that  promise,  is  made  when  the  war- 
rant is  issued  to  him,  and  in  consideration  of  services  then  already  per- 
formed. At  that  time,  no  particular  land  is  transferred  to  him,  nor  even 
the  State  designated  in  which  the  land  shall  be.  The  selection  of  the  land, 
which  first  determines  the  State  where  it  is  to  be  taken  up,  is  the  act,  not 
of  the  Government,  but  of  the  holder  of  the  warrant.  The  Government 
receives  no  new  consideration,  and  makes  no  new  promise  or  grant,  when 
the  warrant  is  assigned  by  the  soldier,  or  when  it  is  actually  located  by 
himself  or  his  assignee,  and  the  land  and  the  State  in  which  it  lies  thereby 
for  the  first  time  designated;  and  never,  at  any  stage  of  the  transaction, 
receives  into  the  Treasury  any  money  from  any  person. 

The  fact  that  the  Registers  and  Receivers  of  the  Land  Office,  performing 
services  in  locating  military  bounty  land  warrants,  are  authorized  by  Sec- 
tion 2  of  the  Act  of  1852  to  demand  and  receive  for  their  services,  from  the 
assignees  or  holders  of  such  warrants,  the  same  compensation  "  to  which  they 
are  entitled  by  law  for  sales  of  the  public  lands  for  cash,  at  the  rate  of  one 
dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre,"  has  no  tendency  to  show  that  the 
United  States,  under  their  agreement  to  pay  to  the  State  five  per  cent  of  the 
net  proceeds  of  lands  sold  by  Congress,  are  bound  to  pay  five  per  cent  on 
the  value  of  lands  which  they  have  never  sold,  and  for  which  they  have 
received  no  money. 

The  Acts  of  March  2,  1855,  ch.  139,  and  March  3,  1857,  ch.  104,  requir- 
ing five  per  cent  to  be  paid  to  the  States  on  the  value  of  lands  included  in 
reservations  under  treaties  with  Indian  tribes,  had  reference  only  to  lands 
reseryed  to  the  Indians  by  stipulations  in  such  treaties.  The  fact  that  the 
words  "as  in  case  of  other  sales"  are  used  in  speaking  of  lands  reserved 
for  that  purpose,  and  have  never  been  so  applied  to  lands  disposed  of  in  sat- 
isfaction of  military  land  warrants,  appears  to  us,  so  far  as  it  has  any  bear- 
ing, to  imply  an  intention  to  exclude  the  latter  from  the  class  of  lands  sold, 
rather  than  to  include  them  in  this  class. 

That  class  of  decisions  of  which  United  States  v.  WatUns,  97  U.  S.  219 
is  an  example,  in  which,  under  an  Act  of  Congress,  providing  that  in  case 
lands  within  territory  ceded  to  the  United  States,  claimed  under  grants 
previously  made  by  foreign  governments  and  since  confirmed,  should  be 
sold  by  the  United  States  before  the  confirmation,  or  could  not  be  surveyed 
and  located,  the  claimant  should  be  entitled  to  so  much  public  land  in  lieu 
thereof,  it  was  held  that  lands  granted  by  the  United  States  to  settlers 
thereon  were  included,  rests  upon  the  reasons  that  the  claimant  had  been 
deprived  of  so  much  of  his  private  property  by  the  act  of  the  United  States, 
and  that  the  statutes  in  pari  materia  used  the  words  "  sold  or  disposed  of." 
Neither  of  those  reasons  is  applicable  to  the  cases  before  us. 

The  conclusion  to  which  the  Court  is  brought,  upon  a  consideration  of  the 
language  of  the  statutes  relied  on,  and  of  the  nature  of  the  subjects  to 
which  they  refer,  accords  with  the  contemporaneous  and  uniform  construc- 
tion given  to  them  by  the  executive  officers  charged  with  the  duty  of  put- 
ting them  in  force.  If  the  Court  had  a  doubt  of  the  true  meaning  of  their 
provisions,  this  practical  construction  would  be  entitled  to  great  weight. 
{Edwards  v.  Darby,  12  Wheat.  206;  United  States  v.  State  Bank  of  North 
Carolina,  6  Pet.  29;  United  States  v.  McDaniel,  7  Pet.  1;  Surgett  v.  Lapice, 
8  How.  48;  Smythe  v.  Fiske,  23  Wall.  374;  United  States  v.  Moore,  95  U.  S. 
760;  United  States  v.  Pugh,  99  U.  S.  265;  Swift  Co.  v.  United  States,  105 
U.  S.  691,  695.) 

The  petitioners  failing  to  prove  any  lawful  claim  against  the  United 
States,  it  becomes  unnecessary  to  determine  the  further  question,  discussed 


90 

at  the  bar,  whether  the  writ  of  mandamus  is  an  appropriate  remedy  in 
such  cases. 

Petitions  dismissed. 

EXHIBIT  No.  15. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  796.    Calendar  No.  G82. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  December  18,  1883.  Mr.  Miller,  of 
California,  asked  and,  by  unanimous  consent,  obtained  leave  to  bring  in 
the  following  bill;  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Public  Lands. 

June  9,  1884.  Reported  by  Mr.  Plumb,  with  an  amendment,  viz.:  Insert 
the  part  printed  in  italics. 

A  BILL 

Granting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
sale  of  public  lands  in  that  State. 

Whereas,  The  States  of  Ohio,  Louisiana,  Indiana,  Mississippi,  Illinois, 
Alabama,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Michigan,  Florida,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minne- 
sota, Oregon,  Kansas,  Nevada,  Nebraska,  and  Colorado,  constituting  the 
list  of  all  the  public  land  States  except  California,  have  each  received  a 
certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands 
situate  within  their  limits,  respectively;  and  whereas,  California  is  the 
only  public  land  State  that  has  not  received  any  percentum  of  the  net  pro- 
ceeds of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  in  said  State ;  therefore 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Seriate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  there  be  and  is  hereby 
granted  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  the  public  lands  which  have  been  or  may  hereafter  be  made  in 
said  State,  to  aid  in  the  support  of  the  public  or  common  schools  of  said 
State;  and  the  sum  of  money  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  of 
this  Act  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  other- 
wise appropriated. 

EXHIBIT  No.  16. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  111.    Printer's  No.,  111. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     December  10,  1883.     Read  twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

Granting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
sale  of  public  lands  in  that  State. 

Whereas,  The  States  of  Ohio,  Louisiana,  Indiana,  Mississippi,  Illinois, 
Alabama,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Michigan,  Florida,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minne- 
sota, Oregon,  Kansas,  Nevada,  Nebraska,  and  Colorado,  constituting  the 
list  of  all  the  public  land  States  except  California,  have  each  received  a 
certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  situ- 


91 

ate  within  their  limits,  respectively;  and  whereas,  California  is  the  only 
public  land  State  that  has  not  received  any  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds 
of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  in  said  State;  therefore, 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  there  be  and  is  hereby 
granted  to  the  State  of  California,  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  the  public  lands  which  have  been  or  may  hereafter  be  made  in 
said  State,  to  aid  in  the  support  of  the  public  or  common  schools  of  said 
State. 

EXHIBIT  No.  17. 

1310  Connecticut  Avenue,  Washington,  D.  C,  } 
January  30,  1884.  J 

Honorable  John  F.  Miller,  United  States  Senate: 

Dear  Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  you  herewith  a  statement  of  facts 
and  argument  in  support  of  Senate  Bill  No.  796,  by  you  introduced  in  the 
Senate  on  December  18,  1883,  and  by  it  referred  to  the  Senate  Committee 
on  Public  Lands.  I  have  the  honor  to  request  that  you  will  submit  this 
statement  to  the  Chairman  of  said  committee,  and  have  it  filed  with  said 
bill,  and  request  that  the  bill  and  papers  maybe  referred  to  the  appropriate 
sub-committee,  in  order  that  early  action  may  be  had  thereon. 
Very  respectfully, 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
Agent  and  Attorney  for  the  State  of  California. 

Relating  to  Senate  Bill  No.  796,     First  session.  Forty-eighth  Congress, 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session. 

In  the  matter  of  Senate  Bill  No.  796. 

CALIFORNIA  FIVE  PER  CENT  BILL, 

The  object  of  Senate  Bill  No.  796,  introduced  in  the  United  States  Senate 
on  December  18,  1883,  by  Senator  Miller  of  California,  has  solely  for  its 
object  to  place  the  State  of  California  upon  an  equal  footing  with  all  other 
public  land  States,  by  extending  to  her  the  provisions  of  a  law  similar  in 
all  respects  to  existing  laws  relating  to  the  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds 
of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States  in  the  several  States. 
A  similar  bill,  H.  R.  No.  61,  was  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives by  Hon,  C,  P,  Berry  of  California,  on  December  13,  1881;  and  also 
Senate  Bill  No.  311  was  introduced  in  the  United  States  Senate  on  Decem- 
ber 8,  1881,  by  Senator  Farley  of  California,  and  reported  favorably  to  the 
Senate,  and  without  amendment  from  the  Senate  Committee  on  Public 
Lands,  February  20,  1882,  by  Senator  Plumb  of  Kansas,  and  which  prac- 
tically passed  the  Senate  by  having  the  provisions  therein  contained  incor- 
porated in  the  general  five  per  cent  bill  which  passed  the  Forty-seventh 
Congress,  but  all  subsequent  action  thereon  was  delayed  by  a  motion  to 
reconsider  the  general  bill  to  which  it  was  attached,  or  in  which  it  was 
incorporated,  same  being  a  bill  ''to  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
to  ascertain  and  certify  the  amount  of  land  located  with  military  warrants 
in  the  States  described  therein,  and  for  other  purposes." 

Since  the  date  of  the  organization  of  the  Government  of  the  United 


92 

States,  to  the  present  time,  it  has  ever  been  its  policy,  without  a  single 
exception,  when  creating  and  admitting  new  States  into  the  Union,  to  grant 
to  said  States  some  certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of 
the  public  lands  therein. 

The  State  of  California  was  admitted  into  the  Union  September  9,  1850, 
and  in  the  Act  of  Congress  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  9,  p.  452)  so  admitting  her, 
it  was  declared  that  she  should  be  admitted  on  an  equal  footing  with  all 
the  other  States  in  all  respects  whatsoever. 

Congress,  in  Section  3  of  said  Act  of  her  admission,  imposed  upon  said 
State  the  identical  obligations  and  express  conditions  as  then  and  hitherto 
imposed  upon  all  new  States,  to  wit:  "That  California  should  never  inter- 
fere with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  public  lands  within  its  limits,  and 
pass  no  law  and  do  no  act  whereby  the  title  of  the  United  States  and  right 
to  dispose  of  the  same  should  be  impaired  or  questioned,  and  that  she 
should  never  levy  any  tax  or  assessment,  of  any  description  whatsoever, 
upon  the  public  domain  therein,  and  that  the  non-resident  proprietors  of 
said  lands — citizens  of  the  United  States — should  not  be  taxed  higher  than 
residents;  and  that  all  the  navigable  waters  in  said  State  should  be  com- 
mon highways,  forever  free  to  all  citizens  of  the  United  States,  without 
tax,  impost,  or  duty  therefor." 

Now,  these  conditions  relating  to  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States 
in  said  State,  were  quite  identical  with  those  imposed  by  Congress  upon 
other  new  States,  and  in  consideration  thereof,  and  for  other  good  and  suffi- 
cient reasons  appearing,  Congress  has  ever  granted  to  all  new  public  land 
States  a  certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public 
land  therein,  the  same  to  be  expended  either  as  Congress  indicated  in  the 
granting  Acts,  or  as  the  Legislatures  of  said  States,  with  the  consent  of 
Congress,  should  subsequently  best  determine. 

These  grants  by  Congress  have  been  made  either  in  the  enabling  Acts  of 
said  States,  or  in  their  Act  of  admission,  or  by  some  subsequent  legisla- 
tion. 

A  table  is  hereto  appended,  wherein  are  fully  given  the  dates,  volumes, 
and  pages  of  the  United  States  Statutes  wherein  Congress  has  extended 
to  the  several  States  this  class  of  legislation,  as  applicable  to  all  the 
so  called  public  land  States,  and  also  to  the  thirteen  original  States.  Cal- 
ifornia was  admitted  into  the  Union  without  any  enabling  Act.  The 
public  land  laws  of  the  United  States  were  not  extended  to  said  State 
until  March  3,  1853  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  10,  page  244),  and  no  sales  of  the 
public  lands  in  said  State  were  reported  prior  to  July  1,  1857. 

In  view  thereof  nothing  was  done  until  a  later  date,  when  the  under- 
signed, as  agent  and  attorney  in  behalf  of  said  State,  requested  the  hon- 
orable Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  to  state  an  account  to  the 
United  States  Treasury  Department,  under  existing  laws,  in  behalf  of  said 
State,  for  her  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  therein. 
This  request  was  not  complied  with  by  said  Commissioner,  and  because,  as 
stated  by  him,  in  writing,  in  reply  to  my  request,  that  he  was  not  vested 
with  sufficient  authority  of  law  to  state  such  an  account,  and  would  not  be 
so  enabled  without  additional  legislation  by  Congress. 

This  last  fact  was  thereupon  duly  communicated  by  the  undersigned  to 
the  proper  authorities  of  California,  whereupon  the  Legislature  thereof,  by 
appropriate  resolution,  memorialized  Congress  on  this  subject,  and  that  it 
take  action  thereon  by  appropriate  and  early  legislation. 

Copies  of  this  memorial  have  been  duly  sent  to  the  California  delegation 
in  Congress,  and  should  be  now  matters  of  record  with  the  papers  relating 
to  this  case  before  your  committee. 


98 

The  California  delegation  in  Congress  have  sought  to  execute  the  will  of 
said  State  as  expressed  in  said  memorial  by  securing  the  passage  of  Senate 
Bill  No.  796. 

Copy  of  this  memorial  has  been  filed  by  the  Governor  of  California,  with 
the  Chairman  of  Public  Land  Committee  in  both  the  Senate  and  House, 
under  the  seal  of  the  Secretary  of  said  State,  and  the  same  should  be  now 
a  matter  of  record  before  your  committee. 

California  is  the  only  public  land  State  to  which  this  provision  of  law  has 
not  yet  been  extended. 

This  claim  of  the  State  of  California,  so  long  overlooked  by  Congress,  is 
well  founded  in  equity.  Similar  claims  have  never  as  yet  been  denied  in 
any  single  instance  to  any  of  the  public  land  States,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
have  been  invariably  granted,  and  that  too  by  prompt  and  adequate  legis- 
lation of  Congress  whenever  properly  asked  for. 

California,  through  her  Legislature,  has  memorialized  Congress  that  it 
enact  appropriate  legislation,  by  means  of  which  she  will  be  placed  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  other  public  land  States,  and,  as  I  submit,  was 
intended  and  provided  for  in  her  Act  of  admission,  but  the  details  of  same 
have  been  overlooked  and  neglected.  It  is  respectfully  submitted  that  her 
delegation  in  Congress,  in  both  Senate  and  House,  will  be  only  executing 
the  views  and  wishes  of  said  State  and  of  the  people  thereof,  as  expressed 
in  their  State  Legislature,  by  securing  the  passage  of  Senate  Bill  No.  796. 

The  matters  herein  contained  have  all  been  by  me  heretofore  laid  before 
the  Public  Land  Committee  of  both  Senate  and  House  of  a  former  Con- 
gress in  support  of  this  measure,  and  have  received  due  and  favorable 
attention. 

In  conclusion,  I  now  very  respectfully  request  that  favorable  action  may 
be  had  by  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  in  order  that  Congress  may 
enact  said  bill  into  a  law  at  the  earliest  date  practicable. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
State  Agent  and  Attorney  for  the  State  of  California. 

1310  Connecticut  Avenue,  Washington,  D.  C. 

To  the  Hon.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Public  Land  Committee, 
United  States  Senate. 


EXHIBIT  No.  18. 

1310  Connecticut  Avenue,  Washington,  D.  C, 

January  30,  1884. 

Honorable  Barclay  Henley,  United  States  House  of  Representatives: 

Dear  Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  you  herewith  a  statement  of  facts 
and  argument  in  support  of  House  Bill  No.  Ill,  by  you  introduced  in  the 
House  on  December  10, 1883;  and  by  it  referred  to  the  House  Committee  on 
Public  Lands.  I  have  the  honor  to  request  that  you  will  submit  this  state- 
ment to  the  Chairman  of  said  committee,  and  have  it  filed  with  said  bill, 
and  request  that  the  bill  and  papers  may  be  referred  to  the  appropriate 
sub-committee,  in  order  that  early  action  may  be  had  thereon. 

Very  respectfully, 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
Agent  and  Attorney  for  the  State  of  California. 


94 

Relating  to  H.  R.  No.  Ill,  first  session,  Forty-eighth  Congress. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session. 

In  the  matter  of  House  Bill  No.  111. 

CALIFORNIA  FIVE  PER  CENT. 

The  object  of  House  Bill  No.  Ill,  introduced  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives on  December  10,  1883,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley  of  California, 
has  solely  for  its  object  to  place  the  State  of  California  upon  an  equal  foot- 
ing with  all  other  public  land  States,  by  extending  to  her  the  provisions  of 
a  law,  similar  in  all  respects  to  existing  laws  relating  to  the  five  per  cent 
of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  for  cash  of  the  public  lands  of  the  United. 
States  in  the  several  States.  A  similar  bill,  H.  R.  No.  61,  was  introduced 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  by  Hon.  C.  P.  Berry  of  California,  on 
December  13,  1881,  and  also  Senate  Bill  No.  311  was  introduced  in  the 
United  States  Senate  on  December  8,  1881,  by  Senator  Farley  of  Califor- 
nia, and  reported  favorably  to  the  Senate,  and  without  amendment,  from 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  February  20,  1882,  by  Senator 
Plumb  of  Kansas,  and  passed  the  Senate  by  having  the  provisions  therein 
contained  incorporated  in  the  general  five  per  cent  bill  which  passed  the 
Forty-seventh  Congress,  but  all  subsequent  action  thereon  was  delayed  by 
a  motion  to  reconsider  the  general  bill  to  which  it  was  attached  or  in  which 
it  was  incorporated,  same  being  a  bill  "  To  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  to  ascertain  aad  certify  the  amount  of  land  located  with  military 
warrants  in  the  States  described  therein  and  for  other  purposes.''^ 

Since  the  date  of  the  organization  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
to  the  present  time,  it  has  ever  been  its  policy,  loithout  a  single  exception, 
when  creating  and  admitting  new  States  into  the  Union,  to  grant  to  said 
States  some  certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  pub- 
lic lands  therein,  as  might  be  made  for  cash. 

The  State  of  California  was  admitted  into  the  Union  September  9,  1860, 
and  in  the  Act  of  Congress  (U.  S.  Stats.,  vol.  9,  p.  452)  so  admitting  her, 
it  was  declared  that  she  should  be  admitted  on  an  equal  footing  with  all 
the  other  States  in  all  respects  whatsoever. 

Congress,  in  Section  3  of  said  Act  of  admission,  imposed  upon  said  State 
the  identical  obligations  and  express  conditions  as  those  and  hitherto 
imposed  upon  all  new  States,  to  wit:  "That  California  should  never  inter- 
fere with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  public  lands  within  its  limits,  and  pass 
no  law  and  do  no  act  whereby  the  title  of  the  United  States  and  right  to 
dispose  of  the  same  should  be  impaired  or  questioned,  and  that  she  should 
never  levy  any  tax  or  assessment  of  any  description  whatsoever  upon  the 
public  domain  therein,  and  that  the  non-resident  proprietors  of  said  lands — 
citizens  of  the  United  States — should  not  be  taxed  higher  than  residents; 
and  that  all  the  navigable  waters  in  said  State  should  be  common  high- 
ways, forever  free  to  all  citizens  of  the  United  States,  without  tax,  impost, 
or  duty  therefor." 

Now,  these  conditions  relating  to  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States 
in  said  States,  were  quite  identical  with  those  imposed  by  Congress  upon 
other  new  States,  and  in  consideration  thereof,  and  for  other  good  and  suffi- 
cient reasons  appearing.  Congress  has  ever  granted  to  all  new  public  land 
States  a  certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public 
lands  made  in  cash  therein,  the  same  to  be  expended,  either  as  Congress 


95 

indicated  in  the  granting  Acts,  or  as  the  Legislature  of  said  States,  with 
the  consent  of  Congress,  should  subsequently  determine. 

These  grants  by  Congress  have  been  made  either  in  the  enabling  Acts 
of  said  States,  or  in  their  Act  of  admission,  or  by  some  subsequent  legis- 
lation. 

A  table  is  hereto  appended  wherein  are  fully  given  the  dates,  volumes, 
and  pages  of  the  United  States  Statutes,  wherein  Congress  has  extended  to 
the  several  States  this  class  of  legislation,  as  applicable  to  all  the  so  called 
public  land  States,  and  also  to  the  thirteen  original  States. 

California  was  admitted  into  the  Union  without  any  enabling  Act.  The 
public  land  laws  of  the  United  States  were  not  extended  to  said  State  until 
March  3,  1853  (U.  S.  Stats.,  vol.  10,  p.  244),  and  no  sales  of  the  public 
lands  in  said  State  were  reported  prior  to  July  1,  1857. 

In  view  thereof  nothing  was  done  until  a  later  date,  when  the  under- 
signed, as  agent  and  attorney  in  behalf  of  said  State,  requested  the  hon- 
orable Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  to  state  an  account  to  the 
United  States  Treasury  Department,  under  existing  laws,  in  behalf  of  said 
State,  for  the  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the  public 
lands  therein. 

This  request  was  not  complied  with  by  said  Commissioner,  and  because, 
as  stated  by  him  in  writing,  in  reply  to  my  request,  that  he  was  not  vested 
with  sufficient  authority  of  law  to  state  such  an  account,  and  would  not  be 
so  enabled  without  additional  legislation  by  Congress. 

This  last  fact  was,  therefore,  duly  communicated  by  the  undersigned  to 
the  proper  authorities  of  California,  whereupon  the  Legislature  thereof,  by 
appropriate  resolution,  memorialized  Congress  on  this  subject,  and  that  it 
take  action  thereon  by  appropriate  and  early  legislation. 

Copies  of  this  memorial  have  been  duly  sent  to  the  California  delegation 
in  Congress,  and  should  be  now  matters  of  record  with  the  papers  relating 
to  this  case  before  your  committee. 

The  California  delegation  in  Congress  have  sought  to  execute  the  will  of 
said  State,  as  expressed  in  said  memorial,  by  securing  the  passage  of  House 
Bill  No.  111. 

Copy  of  this  memorial  has  been  filed  by  the  Governor  of  California  with 
the  Chairman  of  the  Public  Land  Committee  in  both  the  Senate  and 
House,  under  the  seal  of  the  Secretary  of  said  State,  and  the  same  should 
now  be  matter  of  record  before  your  committee. 

California  is  the  only  piiblic  land  State  to  which  this  provision  of  laic  has 
not  yet  been  extended. 

The  claim  of  the  State  of  California,  so  long  overlooked  by  Congress,  is 
well  founded  in  equity.  Similar  claims  have  never  as  yet  been  denied  in 
any  single  instance  to  any  of  the  public  land  States,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
have  been  invariably  granted,  and  that,  too,  by  prompt  and  adequate 
legislation  of  Congress  whenever  properly  asked  for. 

California,  through  her  Legislature,  has  memorialized  Congress  that  it 
enact  appropriate  legislation,  by  means  of  which  she  will  be  placed  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  other  public  land  States,  and,  as  I  submit,  was  in- 
tended and  provided  for  in  her  Act  of  admission,  but  the  details  of  same 
have  been  overlooked  and  neglected.  It  is  respectfully  submitted  that  her 
■delegation  in  Congress,  in  both  Senate  and  House,  will  be  only  executing 
the  views  and  wishes  of  said  State,  and  of  the  people  thereof,  as  expressed 
in  their  State  Legislature,  by  securing  the  passage  of  House  Bill  No.  111. 

The  matters  herein  contained  have  all  been  by  me  heretofore  laid  before 
the  Public  Land  Committee  of  both  Senate  and  House  of  a  former  Con- 


96 

gress  in  support  of  this  measure,  and  have  received  due  and  favorable 
attention. 

In  conclusion,  I  now  very  respectfully  request  that  favorable  action  may 
be  had  by  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  in  order  that  Congress  may 
enact  said  bill  into  a  law  at  the  earliest  date  practicable. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
State  Agent  and  Attorney  for  the  State  of  California. 

To  the  honorable  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Public  Land  Com- 
mittee, United  States  House  of  Representatives. 


EXHIBIT  No.  19. 

RECOVERY  OF  MONEYS   FROM   THE   UNITED   STATES  GOV- 
ERNMENT. 

Information  having  been  received  by  me  that  the  expenses  incurred  by 
this  State,  and  by  the  citizens  of  Siskiyou  and  Modoc  Counties,  for  the 
suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  during  the  Modoc  Indian  war  of  1872^ 
had  never  been  reimbursed  by  the  General  Government,  I  appointed  Captain 
John  Mullan,  at  Washington  City,  D.  C,  to  represent  said  interests,  on 
behalf  of  this  State,  before  the  proper  authorities  of  the  United  States,  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  such  reimbursements,  and  also,  for  such  as  were 
provided  for  (for  California)  under  the  Act  of  Congress,  approved  June  22, 
1882,  authorizing  an  examination  and  adjustment  of  the  claims  of  the  States 
of  Kansas,  Nevada,  California,  Oregon,  Colorado,  Nebraska,  and  Texas,  for 
repelling  invasion  and  Indian  hostilities  therein,  between  April  15,  1861, 
and  June  22, 1882.  Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  just  been  informed  by 
telegraph  that  success  has  attended  Captain  Mullan's  eflfouts,  and  that  the 
Modoc  war  bill,  reimbursing  the  State,  has  passed  both  houses  of  Con- 
gress. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing,  I  also  received  information  that  many  of  the 
States  intended  to  petition  the  General  Government  for  the  return  of  moneys 
paid  by  some  of  them  in  part,  and  by  others  in  whole,  of  the  sums  assessed 
to  the  several  States  under  the  Act  of  Congress,  approved  August  5,  1861, 
to  pay  the  interest  on  the  public  debt,  and  for  other  purposes.  The  amount 
assessed  to  this  State,  under  said  Act,  was  $254,538  66,  which  sum  has 
been  paid;  but  a  few  of  the  States  have  paid  their  assessments  in  full, 
others  but  a  portion,  and  some  of  them  not  anything.  Equity  would  demand 
that  all  or  none  should  comply  with  the  law. 

Deeming  the  subject  of  considerable  importance,  and  that  the  interests 
of  the  State  required  an  agent  to  act  in  her  behalf,  with  others  employed 
in  obtaining  an  equitable  adjustment  of  these  claims,  I  also  authorized 
Captain  Mullan  to  represent  the  State  before  the  proper  authorities  at 
Washington,  and  would  recommend  that  these  appointments  be  ratified 
and  confirmed  by  you,  and  that  you  provide  for  his  compensation,  to  be 
paid  out  of  the  sums  he  may  recover  for  the  State,  contingent,  however, 
upon  his  success,  it  having  been  expressly  understood  that  such  compensa- 
tion should  be  left  entirely  to  your  judgment  and  discretion. 

Under  an  appointment  from  Surveyor-General  William  Minis,  subject  to 
legislative  ratification,  Captain  Mullan,  during  the  last  four  years,  has 
endeavored  to  secure  for  California  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  the  j)ublic  lands  in  this  State,  and  has  already  made  considerable 


97 

progress  in  the  same;  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  before  another  Congress  shall 
have  adjourned  that  California  may  be  placed  upon  an  equal  footing  with 
all  the  other  public  land  States  in  regard  to  this  grant. 

I  invite  your  favorable  attention  to  the  report  of  Surveyor-General  Shank- 
lin  touching  this  subject,  and  to  the  recommendations  by  him  made  in 
regard  thereto. 

EXHIBIT  No.  20. 

THE  FIVE  PER  CENT  FUND. 

I  would  invite  your  attention  to  the  law  of  Congress,  approved  Septem- 
ber 4,  1841,  relating  to  .the  appropriation  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of 
public  lands,  etc.  This  Act  named  the  eight  States  in  which  public  lands 
were  then  for  sale,  giving  said  States  ten  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds,  and 
making  provision  for  the  distribution  of  five  per  cent  among  certain  new 
States  and  Territories.  But  this  law  did  not  contemplate  a  division  among 
other  than  the  twenty-six  States  and  the  Territories  then  existing.  No  good 
reason  can  be  shown  why  California  should  be  excluded  from  this  distribu- 
tion, for  it  is  a  public  land  State,  and  has  contributed  largely  to  the  fund 
to  be  distributed  among  other  States.  It  was  evidently  an  oversight  in  not 
putting  California  upon  an  equal  footing  with  other  States  in  this  matter 
when  she  came  into  the  Union.  My  predecessor,  William  Minis,  taking 
the  same  view  of  the  matter  that  I  do,  appointed  Captain  John  Mullan  as 
an  agent  of  the  State  to  aid  in  procuring  Congressional  legislation  that 
would  give  us  an  equitable  distribution,  and  so  well  has  he  succeeded,  that 
mainly  through  his  activity  in  presenting  and  urging  the  matter  on  the 
attention  of  our  Representatives  and  before  the  Land  Committees  in  Con- 
gress, that  a  bill  has  passed  one  house  and  is  now  pending  in  the  other 
house,  which  will,  if  it  becomes  a  law,  give  California  the  share  she  is  justly 
entitled  to  in  connection  with  the  other  States.  Captain  Mullan  has  con- 
stantly kept  this  office  informed  of  what  he  has  been  doing  in  the  matter. 


EXHIBIT  No.  21. 

ASSEMBLY  CONCURRENT  RESOLUTION  No.  20,  RELATIVE  TO 
DIRECTING  THE  GOVERNOR  TO  FIX  THE  COMPENSATION 
FOR  SERVICES  RENDERED  BY  CAPTAIN  JOHN  MULLAN, 
IN  COLLECTIONS  OF  CLAIMS  DUE  THE  STATE  FROM  THE 
UNITED  STATES. 

[Adopted  March  3,  1883.] 

Whereas,  The  Governor  and  State  Surveyor-General  of  this  State  have 
heretofore  respectively  appointed  Captain  John  Mullan  of  San  Francisco, 
California,  agent  and  attorney  to  represent  the  interests  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia before  the  proper  authorities  of  the  United  States,  at  Washington, 
District  of  Columbia,  in  the  matter  of  the  claim  of  this  State  to  the  five  per 
cent  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  by  the  United  States  in 
this  State;  and  also  in  the  matter  of  the  direct  tax  levied  upon  this  State 
by  the  United  States,  under  the  Act  of  Congress  of  August  sixth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-one;  and  also  of  her  claim  arising  during  the  Modoc 
war,  in  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-two;  and  also  under  the  provisions 

n  m 


98 

of  the  Act  of  Congress  of  June  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and 
eighty-two;  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved  by  the  Assembly  of  California^  the  Senate  concurring^  That  the 
appointments  so  conferred  upon  Captain  John  Mullan  by  the  Governor  and 
Surveyor-General,  respectively,  are  hereby  ratified  and  confirmed;  and  the 
Governor  of  this  State  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  fix 
the  compensation  for  services  by  Captain  John  Mullan  heretofore  and  that 
may  be  by  him  hereafter  rendered,  at  twenty  per  cent  of  each  of  the  sums 
or  claims  that  may  be  by  him  collected  from  the  United  States,  and  to  pay 
to  him  such  per  cent  out  of  the  moneys  that  may  be  collected  by  him  and 
paid  to  this  State  on  account  of  each  of  the  foregoing  matters,  respectively; 
provided,  however,  that  this  State  shall  not  in  any  event  become  liable  for 
any  expenses,  fees,  and  salaries,  of  any  nature  whatever,  other  than  such 
contingent  commission. 

Section  2.  That  the  Controller  of  the  State  of  California  be  and  he  is 
hereby  authorized  to  deliver  to  Captain  John  Mullan,  or  to  his  authorized 
agent,  all  the  original  vouchers,  certificates,  and  papers  of  every  kind  and 
nature  against  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  for  or  on  account  of 
each  of  the  foregoing  matters,  respectively. 

Sec.  3.  That  said  Controller  shall  prepare  and  take  from  Captain 
John  Mullan,  or  from  his  authorized  agent,  a  receipt  in  writing,  bound  in 
a  book,  same  as  he  keeps  in  his  office  for  all  such  papers  as  aforesaid,  and 
which  shall  show  what  the  papers  are  in  each  case,  the  date  thereof,  by 
what  Board  of  Examiners  passed,  the  amount  and  date  of  the  warrant,  and 
in  whose  favor  drawn. 


EXHIBIT  No.  22. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  tirst  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  No.  1969. 

PROCEEDINGS  OF  SALES  OF  PUBLIC  LANDS. 

June  21,  1884 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the 
state  of  the  Union,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Henley,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  submitted  the 
following    ' 

REPORT. 
[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  111.] 

The  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H. 
R.  Ill)  granting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds 
of  the  sales  of  public  lands  in  the  State,  report  as  follows: 

The  object  of  this  bill  is  to  place  the  State  of  California  upon  an  equal 
footing  with  all  the  other  public  land  States,  by  extending  to  her  the  pro- 
visions of  existing  laws  relating  to  the  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of 
the  cash  sales  of  public  lands  in  the  several  public  land  States,  and  which 
laws  have  been  enacted  for  the  benefit  of,  and  which  are  now  and  have 
been  heretofore  enjoyed  by,  the  other  eighteen  public  land  States,  respect- 
ively, to  wit:  of  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Colorado,  Florida,  Indiana,  Illinois, 
Iowa,  Kansas,  Louisiana,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  Missouri,  Nebraska, 
Nevada,  Ohio,  Oregon,  and  Wisconsin. 

Since  the  date  of  the  organization  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  to  the  present  time  it  has  ever  been  the  uniform  policy  of  Congress, 
without  a  single  exception^  either  before  or  at  the  date  when  creating  and 


99 

admitting  new  public  land  States  into  the  Union,  or  subsequent  thereto, 
to  grant  to  said  States  some  certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
cash  sales  of  the  public  lands  therein. 

The  State  of  California  was  admitted  into  the  Union  September  9,  1850, 
and  in  the  Act  of  Congress  (United  States  Statutes,  volume  9,  page  452) 
so  admitting  her,  it  was  declared  that  she  should  be  admitted  on  an  equal 
footing  with  all  the  other  States  in  all  respects  whatsoever. 

Congress,  in  section  three  of  said  Act  of  her  admission,  imposed  upon 
said  State  the  identical  obligations  and  express  conditions  as  then  and 
hitherto  imposed  upon  all  new  public  land  States,  to  wit: 

That  California  should  never  interfere  with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  ptiblic  lands 
within  its  limits,  and  pass  no  law  and  do  no  act  whereby  the  title  of  the  United  States  to 
and  right  to  dispose  of  the  same  should  be  impaired  or  questioned,  and  that  she  should 
never  levy  any  tax  or  assessment  of  any  description  whatsoever  upon  the  public  domain 
therein,  and  that  the  non-resident  proprietors  of  said  lands,  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  should  not  be  taxed  higher  than  residents;  and  that  all  the  navigable  waters  in 
said  State  should  be  common  highways,  forever  free  to  all  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
without  tax,  impost,  or  duty  therefor! 

These  conditions  relating  to  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States  in 
said  State  were  quite  identical  with  those  imposed  by  Congress  upon  other 
new  public  land  States,  and  in  consideration  thereof  and  for  other  good 
and  sufficient  reasons  appearing,  Congress  has  ever  ivithout  a  single  excep- 
tion, granted  to  all  the  new  public  land  States  a  certain  percentum  of 
the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of  the  public  lands  sold  therein;  the 
same  to  be  expended  either  as  Congress  indicated  or  as  the  Legislatures  of 
said  States,  with  the  consent  of  Congress,  should  subsequently  best  deter- 
mine. 

A  table  is  hereto  appended  and  made  part  hereof,  wherein  are  fully 
given  the  dates,  volumes,  and  pages  of  the  statutes  by  which  Congress  has 
extended  to  the  several  public  land  States  this  class  of  legislation,  applica- 
ble to  all  the  public  land  States,  and  also  showing  the  proceeds  of  such 
sales  as  were  distributed  among  the  thirteen  original  States  of  the  Union. 

California  was  admitted  into  the  Union  September  9,  1850,  without  any 
enabling  Act,  but  the  public  land  laws  of  the  United  States  were  not 
extended  to  California  until  March  3,1853  (United  States  Statutes,  volume 
10,  page  244),  more  than  two  years  thereafter,  and  no  sales  of  the  public 
lands  in  said  State  were  made  and  reported  prior  to  July  1,  1857,  as  shown 
by  the  letter  of  the  honorable  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office 
hereto  attached.  The  State  of  California,  after  that  date,  believing  she 
was  already  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  said  percentage  Acts,  heretofore 
requested  the  honorable  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  to  state 
an  account  to  the  United  States  Treasury  Department  in  behalf  of  said 
State  for  her  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of  the  pub- 
lic lands  sold  therein.  This  request  was  not  complied  with  by  said  Com- 
missioner, and  because,  as  stated  by  him,  he  was  not  vested  with  sufficient 
authority  of  law  to  state  such  an  account,  and  would  not  be  so  enabled 
without  additional  or  further  legislation  by  Congress  thereon.  This  last 
fact  having  been  duly  communicated  to  the  proper  authorities  of  the  State 
of  California,  the  Legislature  thereof,  by  appropriate  resolution,  memo- 
rialized Congress  on  this  subject,  and  petitioned  that  Congress  take  further 
action  thereon  by  appropriate  and  early  legislation  in  regard  thereto,  as 
appears  from  copy  of  said  memorial  hereto  attached. 

This  matter  was  therefore  duly  and  several  times  brought  to  the  atten- 
tion of  both  branches  of  Congress.  Similar  bills  were  before  the  House 
Public  Lands  Committee  during  the  Forty-sixth  and  Forty-seventh  Con- 


100 

gresses,  introduced  by  Hon.  C.  P.  Berry,  and  in  the  Senate  by  Senator  Farley 
of  California.  Senate  Bill  No.  311  was  favorably  reported  by  the  Senate 
Public  Lands  Committee  on  February  20,  1882,  and  passed  the  Senate 
on  May  19,  1882,  but  no  action  was  ever  had  on  this  measure  in  the 
House. 

A  similar  bill.  Senate  No.  796,  was  again  introduced  by  Senator  Miller 
of  California,  on  the  eighteenth  December,  1883,  and  was  favorably  reported 
from  the  Senate  Public  Lands  Committee  on  June  9, 1884,  with  the  amend- 
ment following,  to  wit: 

And  the  sum  of  money  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  of  this  Act  is 
hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasurj^  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

This  claim  of  the  State  of  California,  so  long  overlooked  by  Congress,  is 
well  founded  in  equity,  similar  claims  having  never  as  yet  been  denied  in 
any  single  instance  to  any  of  the  public  land  States,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, have  been  invariably  granted  by  prompt  and  adequate  legislation 
whenever  properly  asked  for.  The  total  amounts  received  by  each  of  the 
several  States  up  to  June  30,  1880,  are  set  forth  in  tables  hereto  attached 
and  made  a  part  hereof. 

The  amount  that  the  State  of  California  would  be  entitled  to  receive  up 
to  June  30,  1883,  under  this  bill,  is  $458,434  50,  and  as  fully  set  forth  in 
an  official  statement  of  the  honorable  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office,  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  of  this  report. 

Wherefore  your  committee  concur  in  recommending  the  passage  of  this 
bill,  as  amended  by  the  Senate  Public  Lands  Committee  on  June  9,  1884, 
in  a  similar  bill.  Senate  No.  796,  by  adding  thereto  the  words  as  follows,  to. 
wit: 

"And  the  sum  of  money  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  of 
this  Act  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  other- 
wise appropriated." 

[Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  111.] 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.    December  10,  1883— Read  twice,  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Public  Lands,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

Granting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  jmMic 

lands  in  that  State. 

Whereas,  The  States  of  Ohio,  Louisiana,  Indiana,  Mississippi,  Illinois,  Alabama,  Mis- 
souri, Arkansas,  Michigan,  Florida,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Oregon,  Kansas,  Nevada, 
Nebraska,  and  Colorado,  constituting  the  list  of  all  the  public  land  States,  except  Cali- 
fornia, have  each  received  a  certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the 
public  lands  situate  within  their  limits,  respectively ;  and  whereas,  California  is  the  only 
public  land  State  that  has  riot  received  ariy  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of 
the  public  lands  in  said  State ;  therefore. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  there  be  and  is  hereby  granted  to  the  State  of  California  five  per 
centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  which  have  been  or  may  here- 
after be  made  in  said  State,  to  aid  in  the  support  of  the  public  or  common  schools  of 
said  State;  and  the  sum  of  money  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  of  this  Act 
is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

State  of  California,  Department  of  State. 

I,  D.  M.  Burns,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of  California,  do  hereby  certify  that  I 
have  compared  the  annexed  copy  of  Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  1,  adopted  Feb- 
ruary 9,  1881,  with  the  original  now  on  file  in  my  office,  and  that  the  same  is  a  correct 
transcript  therefrom,  and  of  the  whole  thereof. 

Witness  my  hand  and  the  great  seal  of  State,  at  office  in  Sacramento,  California,  the 
eighteenth  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1882. 

[seal.]  D.  M.  burns,  Secretary  of  State. 

By  Thos,  H.  Reynolds,  Deput3^ 


101 

(Chapter  7.) 

Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  1,  relative  to  the  sale  of  public  lands. 

_  Whjeeeas,  The  States  x)f  Ohio,  Louisiana,  Indiana,  Mississippi, -Illinois,  Alabama,  Mis- 
souri, Arkansas,  Michigan,  Florida,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Oregon,  Kansas,  Nevada, 
Nebraska,  and  Colorado,  constituting  the  entire  list  of  public  land  States,  except  California, 
have  each  received  a  certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public 
lands  situate  within  their  limits,  respectively ;  and  whereas,  California  is  the  only  State 
of  the  public  land  States  that  has  not  received  any  percentum ;  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved  by  the  Senate,  the  Assembly  concurring,  First — That  the  Legislature  of  California 
does  hereby  memorialize  Congress  to  place  the  State  of  California  upon  the  same  footing  as 
regards  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  all  public  lands  in  said  State  as  the  other  States  named 
in  the  preamble;  and  to  give  California  all  the  benefits  and  payments  to  which  said  States, 
■or  either  of  them,  are  entitled  under  all  the  Acts  of  Congress  heretofore  passed,  or  that 
may  hereafter  be  passed,  and  the  same,  when  granted,  to  be  dedicated  to  educational  pur- 
poses. 

Second — That  our  Representatives  in  Congress  are  hereby  requested,  and  our  Senators 
instructed,  to  vote  for,  and  in  all  honorable  ways  endeavor  to  secure  the  passage  of,  an 
Act  of  Congress  granting  this  State  five  per  centum  for  said  purposes. 

Third— That  the  Governor  is  hereby  requested  to  forward  a  copy  of  this  memorial  to 
€ach  Senator  and  Representative  from  California  in  Congress,  for  his  information  and 
favorable  action  in  the  premises. 

JNO.  MANSFIELD, 

President  of  the  Senate. 
W.  H.  PARKS, 

Speaker  of  the  Assembly. 

Attest:  D.  M.  BURNS, 

Secretary  of  State. 

Adopted  February  9, 1881. 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  December  21, 1881.     j 

Sir  :  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  nineteenth  instant,  inquiring  whether  any 
public  lands  were  sold  in  California  prior  to  July  1,  1857,  or  not;  and  in  answer  thereto 
have  to  inform  you  that  the  records  of  this  office  show  that  although  the  offices  at  Benicia 
and  Los  Angeles  were  open  in  1853,  no  sale  was  made  until  July  1,  1857. 

Very  respectfully, 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 
Hon.  C.  P.  Berr5^ 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  February  7,  1884.     j 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt,  by  reference  from  the  Department 
for  report,  of  letter  dated  the  twenty-second  dav  of  January,  1884,  from  Hon.  P.  B.  Plumb, 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  tJnited  States  Senate,  inclosing  Senate  Bill 
No.  796,  granting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sale  of 
public  lands  in  the  State,  and  requesting  information  as  to  the  area  sold  that  would  be 
affected  by  the  bill. 

In  the  Acts  of  Congress  admitting  into  the  Union  what  are  known  as  public  land  States, 
with  the  exception  of  that  admitting  California  (September  9,  1850,  U.  S.  Stats.,  vol.  9,  page 
452),  a  provision  was  included  granting  to  said  States  two,  three,  and  five  per  cent,  respect- 
ively, of  the  net  proceeds  derived  from  the  sales  of  public  lands  within  their  limits  in 
aid  of  certain  internal  improvements  or  of  public  schools. 

As  the  Act  admitting  California  into  the  Union  did  not  provide  for  the  payment  of  any 
percentage  of  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands,  no  account  therefor  has  been  stated  in 
favor  of  said  State. 

The  amount  that  would  be  affected  by  the  passage  of  the  bill  referred  to,  not  including 
the  amount  derived  from  any  location  or  disposal  of  the  public  lands  other  than  cash 
sales,  including  mineral  land,  to  June  30, 1883,  is  $9,168,690  13,  and  five  per  cent  thereof  is 
•$458,434  50.    See  statement  herewith. 

I  return  herewith  the  letter  of  Senator  Plumb,  inclosing  Senate  Bill  No.  796. 

Very  respectfully, 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 
Hon.  H.  M.  Teller,  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 


102 


TABLE  No.  1. 

Acts  of  Congress  Granting  to  the  several  States  of  the  United  States  certain  percentum  upon 
the  Net  Proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of  the  Public  Lands. 


States. 


Date  Granting. 


United  States 
Statutes. 


Vol.      Page. 


Alabama - 


Arkansas  . 

Colorado -- 
Florida  ..- 

Iowa - 

Illinois 

Indiana. -- 

Kansas 

Louisiana . 

Missouri-. 
Mississippi 


Michigan 

Minnesota 

Nebraska 

Nevada  

Ohio  -. ..- 

Oregon 

Wisconsin 

New  Hampshire 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island- 

Connecticut 

New  York. 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania  - 

Delaware 

Maryland 

Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Kentucky 

Vermont--- 

Tennessee- -- 

Maine--- 

District  of  Columbia 


September  4,  1841 
March  2,  1819-.- 
May  3,1822...... 

July  4,  1836 

March  2,  1855. ... 
September  4,  1841 

June  23,  1836 

September  4,  1841 

March  3,1875 

March  3,  1845 

March  3,  1845 

March  3,1845 

March  3,  1845 

December  28,  1846 

March  2,  1849 

April  18,  1818 

September  4,  1841 

April  11, 1818 

April  19, 1816 

September  4,  1841 

Mav  4,  1858 

February  20,  1811 
September  4,  1841 
Februarv  28, 1859 

May  3,  1822 

March  6,  1820 

September  4, 1841 
September  4,  1841 

March  1,  1817 

May  3,1822 

July  4,1836. 

March  3,  1857..-- 
September  4,  1841 

June  23.  1836 

September  4,  1841 
February  26,  1857 

May  11, 1858 

April  19,  18&4.... 
March  16,1864... 

March  3,  1803 

April  30,1802.-- 
September  4,  1841 
February  14,  1859 
August  6,  1846.- 

May  29,1848 

September  4,  1841 
September  4, 1841 
September  4,  1841 
September  4, 1841 
September  4,  1841 
September  4,  1841 
September  4,  1841 
September  4,  1841 
September  4,  1841 
September  4,  1841 
September  4,  1841 
September  4,  1841 
September  4,  1841 
September  4, 1841 
September  4,  1841 
September  4,  1841 
September  4,  1841 
September  4,  1841 


2 

3 

3 

3 

5 
10 

5 
10 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 
10 

3 

5 
10 

5 

5 
10 

2 

3 

5 
10 

2 

3 

3 

5 

5 
10 

5 
10 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3 

5 
10 

5 

5 

5 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10  1 
10 
10 
10 


108 

TABLE  No.  2. 

Statement  of  the  Total  Amounts  of  Money  received  by  the  several  States  of  the  United  States 
from  the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of  the  Public  Lands  up  to  June  30,  1880. 


States. 

Al. 

Bl. 

A  2. 

B2. 

C. 

Total. 

Alabama 

$17,119  35 
3,134  60 

$2,107  71 
385  93 

$5,248  74 
1,348  19 

$649  43 
143  44 

$1,004,365  57     «1  099  490  90 

Arkansas 4-. 

Colorado 

227,359  05 
9,589  73 

232,371  21 
9  589  73- 

Connecticut 

10,845  43 

2,695  30 

1,545  96 

20,256  43 

16,654  33 

23,994  54 

1,508  03 

1,335  27 

331  84 

190  33 

2,493  94 

2,050  46 

2,954  17 

185  67 

12,180  70 

Delaware 

3,027  14 

30,711  73 

22,750  37 

763,307  92 

648,555  63 

627  768  86 

Florida    

28,975  44 

Georgia    .  



Illinois 

29,635  02 
2,883  12 

2,223  29 
446  30 

712,744  82 
618,277  50 
626,075  16 
258,842  11 

Indiana 

Iowa -' 

Kansas    

258,842  11 
27,776  19 

Kentucky 

24,731  31 
9,971  59 
17,554  90 
15,187  54 
25,807  93 
7,426  03 

3,044  88 
1,227  69 
2,161  33 
1,869  88 
3,177  43 
914  28 

Louisiana 

Maine 

2,827  99 

141  72 

315,612  89 

329,781  88 
19,716  23 
17,057  42 
28,985  35 

481,074  12 

99,409  47 

1,001,920  42 

574,670  38 

116,578  67 

8,319  84 

11,181  36 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

1,141  79 

247  47 

471,344  55 
90,409  47 
987,832  28 
551,423  83 
116,578  67 
8,319  84 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

io,4io  19 

12,608  57 

1,281  69 
1,552  35 

2,396  26 
8,388  24 

697  39 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

" 

New  Hampshire.. 

New  Jersey .-. 

New  York 

9,955  64 
13,050  42 
84,974  15 
22,917  97 
53,157  53 

1,225  72 
1,606  75 
10,461  89 
2,821  63 
6,544  67 

14,657  17 

95  436  04 

North  Carolina 

25  739  60 

Ohio     

923  64 

420  49 

596,634  10 
34,911  09 

657,680  43 
34,911  09 
67  738  95 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

60,313  27 

3,807  28 

16,218  15 

26,447  68 

10,213  61 

37,090  48 

1,082  45 

1,463  53 

7,425  68 

4()8  75 

1,996  75 

3.256  20 

1.257  48 
4,566  52 

133  27 
180  19 

Rhode  Island 

4,276  03 

South  Carolina 

18,214  90 
29,703  88 
11,4T1  09 
41  657  00 

Tennessee 

Vermont 



Virginia 

Wisconsin 

455,253  73 

456.469  45 

Dist.  of  Columbia. 

1,643  72 

104 


TABLE  No.  3— A  1. 

Statement  showing  the  respective  Shares  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  of  the  United  States 
and  the  District  of  Columbia  under  the  Distribution  Act  of  fourth  September,  I84I,  of  the  resi- 
due of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sale  of  the  Public  Lands  sold  in  the  half  year  ending  thir- 
tieth June,  I842. 


States,  Territories,  and  District  of  Columbia. 


Free 
Population. 


Slaves. 


Federal 
Numbers. 


Distributive 
Shares. 


'Maine  .  -" 

New  Hampshire 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island- 

Connecticut ..- 

Vermont  -.. 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania  - 

Delaware 

Maryland--- 

Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia-- 

Alabama - 

Mississippi 

Louisiana 

Tennessee 

Kentucky  .- 

Ohio -. 

Indiana-- 

Illinois - 

Missouri 

Arkansas 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

Iowa 

Florida 

District  of  Columbia 

Totals - 


501,793 

284,573 

737,698 

108,825 

309,998 

291,948 

2,428,917 

372,632 

1,723,969 

75,480 

380,282 

790,810 

507,602 

267,360 

410,448 

337,224 

180,440 

183,959 

646,151 

597,570 

1,519,4(>4 

685,863 

475,852 

325,462 

77,639 

212,267 

30,934 

43,096 

28,760 

39,018 


0 
1 
1 

5 

17 

0 

4 

674 

64 

2,605 

89,737 

448,987 

245,817 

327,038 

280,944 

253,532 

195,211 

168,452 

183,059 

182,258 

3 

3 

331 

58,240 

19.935 

0 

11 

16 

25,717 

4,694 


501,793 

284,574 

737,699 

108,828 

310,008 

291,948 

2,428,919 

373,036 

1,724,007 

77,043 

434,124 

1,060,202 

655,092 

463,583 

579,014 

489,343 

297,567 

285,030 

755,986 

706,925 

1,519,466 

685,865 

476,051 

360,406 

89,600 

212,267 

30,941 

43,106 

44,190 

41,834 


$17,554  90 

9,955  64 

25,807  92 

3,807  28 

10,845  43 

10,213  61 

84;974  15 

13,050  42 

60,313  27 

2,695  30 

15,187  54 

37,090  48 

22,917  97 

16,218  15 

20,256  43 

17,119  35 

10,410  19 

9,971  59 

26,447  68 

24,731  31 

53,157  53 

23,994  54 

16,654  33 

12,608  57 

3,134  60 

7,426  03 

1,082  45 

1,508  03 

1,545  96 

1,463  53 


14,576,034 


2,487,356 


16,068,447 


$562,144  18 


Department  OP  THE  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  | 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882.      j 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner.  * 


105 

TABLE  No.  4— B  1. 

iStatement  showing  the  respective  Shares  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  of  the  United  States 
and  the  District  of  Columbia,  under  the  Distribution  Act  of  fourth  September,  I84I,  of  the  resi- 
due of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sale  of  the  Public  Lands  sold  from  the  first  day  of  July  to 
the  ttuenty-ninth  of  August,  I842,  inclusive. 


States,  Territories,  AND  District  of  Columbia. 


Free      - 
Population. 


Slaves. 


-Federal 
Numbers. 


Distributive 

Shares. 


Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut 

Vermont 

New  York •.. 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

Delaware 

Maryland 

Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Alabama . . . . 

Mississippi 

Louisiana 

Tennessee 

Kentucky 

Ohio....: 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Missouri 

Arkansas 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

Iowa 

Florida ._ 

District  of  Columbia 

Totals 


501,793 

284,573 

737,698 

108,825 

309,998 

291,948 

2,428,917 

372,632 

1,723,969 

75,480 

380,282 

790,810 

507,602 

267,360 

410,448 

337,224 

180,440 

183,959 

646,151 

597,570 

1,519,464 

685,863 

475,852 

325,462 

77,639 

212,267 

30,934 

43,096 

28,760 

39,018 


4 

674 

64 

2,605 

89,737 

448,987 

245,817 

327,038 

280,944 

253,532 

195,211 

168,452 

180,059 

182,258 

3 

3 

331 

58,240 

19,935 


11 

16 

25,717 

4,694 


501,793 
284,574 
737,699 
108,828 
310,008 
291,948 

2,428,919 
378,036 

1,724,007 

77,043 

434,124 

1,060,202 
655,092 
463,583 
579,014 
489,343 
297,567 
285,030 
755,986 
706,925 

1,519,466 

685,865 

476,051 

360,406 

89,600 

212,267 

30,941 

43,106 

44,190 

41,834 


12,161  33 

1,225  72 

3,177  43 

468  75 

1,335  27 

1,257  48 

10,461  89 

1,606  75 

7,425  68 

831  84 

1,869  88 

4,566  52 

2,821  63 

1,996  75 

2,493  94 

2,107  71 

1,281  69 

1,227  69 

3,256  20 

3,044  88 

6,544  67 

2,954  17 

2,050  46 

1,552  35 

385  93 

914  28 

133  27 

185  67 

190  33 

180  19 


14,576,034 


2,487,356 


16,068,447 


39,210  35 


Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  G.,Aprill4,4882.      j 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  tb  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 


106 


TABLE  No.  5~A  2. 

Statement  of  the  Additional  Allowaiice  to  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Arkan- 
sas, Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  and  Michigan  of  ten  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
cash  sale  of  the  Public  Lands  sold  in  the  half  year  ending  thirtieth  June,  1842,  xinder  the  Dis- 
tribution Act  of  September  4,  I84I,  according  to  the  mode  prescribed  by  the  First  Comptroller  of 
the  Treasury. 


States  and  Territoeies. 

Gross  proceeds  of 

Lands  sold  in  States 

and  Territories. 

Proportion 

of  Expenses  to  be 

deducted. 

Net  proceeds  of 
Sales  after  deduct- 
ing proportion  of 
Expenses  from 
gross  proceeds. 

Additional  allow- 
ance of  ten  per  cent 
to  each  of  the  new 

States  on  net 

proceeds  of  Sales 

therein. 

Ohio- 

$12,534  27 
39,125  53 

402,163  06 

113,832  94 
18,295  69 
38,377  32 
32,518  52 
71,228  19 
15,494  68 

743,570  20 
93,646  50 

$3,297  88 

10,294  29 

105,812  86 

29,950  51 

4,813  78 
10,097  43 

8,555  92 
18,740  80 

4,076  79 

195,640  26 

24,639  27 

$9,236  39 
28,831  24 

296,250  20 
83,882  43 
13,481  91 
28,279  89 
23,962  60 
52,487  39 
11,417  89 

547,929  94 
69,207  23 

$923  64 
2,883  12 
29,(535  02 
8,388  24 
1,348  19 
2,827  99 
2,396  26 
5,248  74 
1,141  79 

Indiana 

Illinois    

Missouri 

Arkansas    . 

Louisiana 

Mississippi 

Alabama 

Michigan    . . 

Wisconsin 

Iowa _ 

Totals 

$837,216  70 

$220,279  53 

$616,937  17 

$54,792  99 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882. 
I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 


TABLE  No.  6-B  2. 

Statement  of  the  Additional  Allowance  to  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Arkan- 
sas, Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  and  Michigan,  of  the  ten  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds 
of  the  cash  sale  of  the  Public  Lands  sold  therein,  respectively,  from  the  first  day  of  July  to  the 
twenty-ninth  of  August,  I842,  inclusive,  under  the  Distribution  Act  of  September  4i  1841y 
according  to  the  mode  prescribed  by  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  I 


States  and  Territories. 

Gross  proceeds  of 
Sales  in  the  States 
and  Territories, 
deducting  propor- 
tion of  $5  43 
excess  of  repay  in 
Mississippi. 

Proportion  of 
Expenses  deducted 
from  gross  pro- 
ceeds. 

Net  proceeds  of 

Sales  after 

deducting  from 

gross  proceeds  the 

proportion  of 
Expenses  as  stated. 

Additional 
allowance  to   the 
above  mentioned 

States  of  ten 

per  cent  of  net 

proceeds  of  Lands 

sold  therein. 

Ohio 

$7,286  63 
7,733  95 

38.527  51 

12,085  07 
2,485  73 
2,455  96 

11,253  99 
4,288  38 

$3,081  76 
3,270  95 

16,294  59 
5,111  19 
1,051  30 
1,038  71 
4,759  69 
2,813  70 

$4,204  87 
4,463  00 

22,232  92 
6,973  88 
1,434  43 
1,417  25 
6,494  30 
2,474  68 

$420  49 

Indiana 

446  30 

Illinois  

2,223  29 
697  39 
143  44 

Missouri _. 

Arkansas    

Louisiana 

141  72 

Alabama 

649  43 

Michigan  - 

247  47 

Totals 

$86,117  22 

$36,421  89 

$49,695  33 

$4,969  53 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  ] 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882.         j" 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 


107 

TABLE  No.  7— C. 

Statement  of  the  Amounts  which  have  accrued  to  the  following  named  States  up  to  the  thirtieth 
June,  1880,  on  account  of  the  two,  three,  and  five  per  cent  upon  the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash 
Sales  of  the  Public  Land  within  their  respective  limits. 


States. 

Two  Per  Cent. 

Three  Per  Cent. 

Five  Per  Cent. 

Aggregate. 

$401,782  23 

$602,583  34 

$1,004,365  57 
227,359  05 

Arkansas                   --  

$227,359  05 

9,589  73 

28,975  44 

626,075  16 

Colorado  

9,589  73 

Florida    

28,975  44 

626,075  16 

712,744  82 

618,277  50 

712,744  82 

Indiana 

618,277  50 
258,842  11 

258,842  11 
315,612  89 

315,612  89 

395,142  08 

15,587  78 

592,690  20 
535,836  05 

987,832  28 
551,423  83 

Missouri                .                     

""47Y,344"55' 

99,409  47 

8,319  84 

116,578  67 

34,911  09 

Michigan 

471,344  55 
99,409  47 

Minnesota 

8,319  84 
116,578  67 

Nebraska                  _            .          . 

Oregon 

34,911  09 
596,634  10 

Ohio 

. 

596,634  10 

Wisconsin 

455,253  73 

455,253  73 

Totals 

$812,512  09 

$3,658,766  01 

$2,652,271  73 

$7,123,549  83 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  \ 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882.  \ 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 


EXHIBIT  No.  22^. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  7235. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  Jmie  16, 1884 — Referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

AMENDMENT. 

Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Miller,  of  California,  to  the  bill  (H.  R. 
7235)  making  appropriations  to  supply  deficiencies  in  the  appropriations 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-four, 
and  for  prior  years,  and  for  those  certified  as  due  by  the  accounting  officers 
of  the  Treasury,  in  accordance  with  section  four  of  the  Act  of  June  four- 
teenth, eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-eight,  heretofore  paid  from  perma- 
nent appropriations,  and  for  other  purposes,  viz.:  On  page  40,  at  the  end 
of  line  107,  insert  the  following : 

"  To  pay  to  the  State  of  California,  on  account  of  five  per  centum  of  the 
net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of  the  public  lands  in  said  State  prior  to 
June  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-three,  the  sum  of  four  hundred 
and  fifty-eight  thousand  four  hundred  and  thirty-four  dollars  and  fifty 
cents." 


108 
EXHIBIT  No.  23. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  994.    Calendar  No.  196. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  January  11-,  1886 — Mr.  Stanford 
introduced  the  following  bill,  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Public  Lands.  February  15,  1886 — Reported  by  Mr.  Dolph 
with  amendments,  viz.:  Omit  the  part  struck  through  and  insert  the  parts 
printed  in  italics. 

A  BILL 

Gr(^nting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of 
the  sales  of  public  lands  in  said  State. 

Whereas,  The  States  of  Ohio,  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Illinois,  Alabama, 
Missouri,  Arkansas,  Michigan,  Florida,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Ore- 
gon, Kansas,  Nevada,  Nebraska,  and  Colorado,  constituting  the  list  of  all 
the  public  land  States  except  California,  have  each  received  a  certain  per 
centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  situate  within 
their  limits,  respectively;  and  whereas,  California  is  the  only  public  land 
State  that  has  not  received  any  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales 
of  the  public  lands  in  said  State;  therefore, 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  there  be  and  is  hereby 
granted  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  the  public  lands  which  have  been  made  by  the  United  States,  since  the 
admission  of  said  State  or  may  hereafter  be  made  in  said  State  to  aid  in  the 
support  of  the  public  or  common  schools  of  said  State;  and  the  sum  of  money 
necessary  to  pay  said  five  per  centum  to  said  State  is  hereby  appropriated 
out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 


EXHIBIT  No.  24. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  150.    Report  No.  994. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.  December  21,  1885 — Read  twice,  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
March  10,  1886 — Reported  wath  amendments,  committed  to  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Omit  the  part  struck  through  and  insert  the  parts  printed  in  italics. 

Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

•  A  BILL 

Granting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
--<--  of  public  lands  in  said  State. 


Whereas,  The  States  of  Ohio,  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Illinois,  Alabama, 
Missouri,  Arkansas,  Michigan,  Florida,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Ore- 
gon, Kansas,  Nevada,  Nebraska,  and  Colorado,  constituting  the  list  of  all 
the  public  land  States  except  California,  have  each  received  a  certain  per- 
centum of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  situate  within 
their  limits,  respectively;  and  whereas,  California  is  the  only  public  land 


109 

State  that  has  not  received  a  certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  the  public  lands  in  said  State;  therefore, 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  there  be  and  is  hereby 
granted  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  the  public  lands  which  have  been  made  by  the  United  States  since 
the  admission  of  said  State,  or  may  hereafter  be  made  in  said  State,  to  aid 
in  the  support  of  the  public  or  common  schools  of  said  State ;  and  the  sum 
of  money  necessary  to  pay  said  five  per  centum  to  said  State  is  hereby  appro- 
priated out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 


EXHIBIT  No.  25. 

Forty -ninth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  No.  994. 

PROCEEDS  OF  SALES  OF  PUBLIC  LANDS. 

March  10,  1886 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on 
the  state  of  the  Union,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Henley,  from  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  submitted  the  follow- 
ing 

REPORT. 
[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  150.] 

The  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R. 
150)  granting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of 
the  sales  of  public  lands  in  said  State,  make  the  following  report: 

This  bill  is  in  accord  with  settled  legislative  precedents  followed  and 
adhered  to  by  Congress  in  the  case  of  every  public  land  State  heretofore 
admitted  into  the  Union.  This  bill  makes  no  grant  other  than  or  different 
from  that  made  by  Congress  to  every  public  land  State  in  the  Union,  but 
simply  places  California  upon  an  equal  footing  and  upon  the  same  plane 
with  all  other  public  land  States  in  regard  to  existing  laws  relating  to  the 
five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  in  said 
States,  respectively.    * 

A  bill  similar  to  this  has  been  heretofore  favorably  reported  from  the 
Public  Lands  Committee  in  the  House  in  a  prior  Congress,  and  in  the  Sen- 
ate at  three  different  times,  to  wit,  during  the  Forty-seventh,  Forty-eighth, 
and  Forty-ninth  Congresses,  but  never  acted  upon  in  either  House  or  Sen- 
ate during  either  of  said  Congresses,  and  because  said  Congresses  in  every 
instance  adjourned  before  reaching  said  bills  on  the  calendar  of  either  body. 

The  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands  of  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  made 
an  elaborate  report  on  the  matters  contained  in  this  bill,  and  which  report, 
to  wit,  Report  No.  1969,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session,  your  committee 
now  adopt  and  make  and  now  submit  the  same  as  a  part  of  this  report. 

The  committee  recommend  an  amendment  to  said  bill  by  inserting  in 
line  five  after  the  word  "been"  the  words  "made  by  the  United  States 
since  the  admission  of  said  State;"  and  also  amend  in  line  eight  by  striking 
out  the  words  "  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  of  this  Act,"  and  in  lieu 
thereof  inserting  the  words  "  pay  said  five  per  centum  to  said  State,"  which 
amendments  harmonize  with  the  amendments  as  recommended  in  a  similar 
bill  reported  to  the  Senate  from  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  February 
15,  1886. 


110 
And  so  amended,  your  committee  recommend  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

[House  Report  No.  1969,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.] 

The  Committee  on  the  PubHc  Lands,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R.  Ill)  granting 
to  the  State  of  California  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands  in 
that  State,  report  as  follows : 

The  object  of  this  bill  is  to  place  the  State  of  California  upon  an  equal  footing  with  all  the 
other  public  land  States,  by  extending  to  her  the  provisions  of  existing  law^s  relating  to  the 
five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of  public  lands  in  the  several  public  land 
States,  and  which  laws  have  been  enacted  for  the  benefit  of,  and  which  are  now  and  have 
been  heretofore  enjoyed  by,  the  other  eighteen  p^^blic  land  States,  respectively,  to  wit:  of 
Alabama,  Arkansas,  Colorado,  Florida,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Louisiana,  Michi- 
gan, Minnesota,  Missouri,  Nebraska,  Nevada,  Ohio,  Oregon,  and  Wisconsin. 

Since  the  date  of  the  organization  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  the  present 
time  it  has  ever  been  the  uniform  policy  of  Congress,  without  a  single  exception,  either  before 
or  at  the  date  when  creating  and  admitting  new  public  land  States  into  the  Union,  or  sub- 
sequent thereto,  to  grant  to  said  States  some  certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
cash  sales  of  the  public  lands  therein. 

The  State  of  California  was  admitted  into  the  Union  September  9, 1850,  and  in  the  Act  of 
Congress  (United  States  Statutes,  volume  9,  page  452)  so  admitting  her,  it  was  declared  that 
she  should  be  admitted  on  an  equal  footing  with  all  the  other  States  in  all  respects  what- 
soever. 

Congress,  in  Section  3  of  said  Act  of  her  admission,  imposed  upon  said  State  the  identi- 
cal obligations  and  express  conditions  as  then  and  hitherto  imposed  upon  all  new^  public 
land  States,  to  wit : 

"That  California  should  never  interfere  with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  public  lands 
within  its  limits,  and  pass  no  law,  and  do  no  act  whereby  the  title  of  the  United  States  to 
and  right  to  dispose  of  the  same  should  be  impaired  or  questioned,  and  that  she  should 
never  levy  any  tax  or  assessment  of  any  description  whatsoever  upon  the  public  domain 
therein,  and  that  the  non-resident  proprietors  of  said  lands — citizens  of  the  United  States — 
should  not  be  taxed  higher  than  residents;  and  that  all  the  navigable  waters  in  said  State 
should  be  common  highways,  forever  free  to  all  citizens  of  the  United  States,  without  tax, 
impost,  or  duty  therefor." 

These  conditions  relating  to  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States  in  said  State  were 
quite  identical  with  those  imposed  by  Congress  upon  other  new  public  land  States,  and  in 
consideration  thereof  and  for  other  good  and  sufficient  reasons  appearing.  Congress  has 
ever,  without  a  single  exception,  granted  to  all  the  new  public  land  States  a  certain  percen- 
tum of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of  public  lands  sold  therein ;  the  same  to  be 
expended  either  as  Congress  indicated  or  as  the  Legislatures  of  said  States,  with  the  con- 
sent of  Congress,  should  subsequently  best  determine. 

A  table  is  hereto  appended  and  made  a  part  hereof,  wherein  are  fully  given  the  dates, 
volumes,  and  pages  of  the  statutes  by  which  Congress  has  extended  to  the  several  public 
land  States  this  class  of  legislation,  applicable  to  all  the  public  land  States,  and  also  show- 
ing the  proceeds  of  such  sales  as  were  distributed  among  the  thirteen  original  States  of 
the  Union. 

California  was  admitted  into  the  Union  September  9, 1850,  without  any  enabling  Act,  but 
the  public  land  laws  of  the  United  States  were  not  extended  to  California  until  March  3, 
1853  (United  States  Statutes,  volume  10,  page  244),  more  than  two  years  thereafter,  and 
no  sales  of  the  public  lands  in  said  State  were  made  and  reported  prior  to  July  1,  1857,  as 
shown  by  the  letter  of  the  honorable  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  hereto 
attached.  The  State  of  California,  after  that  date,  believing  she  was  already  entitled  to 
the  benefit  of  said  percentage  Acts,  heretofore  requested  the  honorable  Commissioner  of 
the  General  Land  Office  to  state  an  account  to  the  United  States  Treasury  Department  in 
behalf  of  said  State  for  her  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of  the  public 
lands  sold  therein.  This  request  was  not  complied  with  by  said  Commissioner,  and 
because,  as  stated  by  him,  he  was  not  vested  with  sufficient  authority  of  law  to  state  Such 
an  account,  and  would  not  be  so  enabled  without  additional  or  further  legislation  by  Con- 
gress thereon.  This  last  fact  having  been  duly  communicated  to  the  proper  authorities 
of  the  State  of  California,  the  Legislature  thereof,  by  appropriate  resolution,  memorialized 
Congress  on  this  subject,  and  petitioned  that  Congress  take  further  action  thereon  by 
appropriate  and  early  legislation  in  regard  thereto,  as  appears  from  copy  of  said  memo- 
rial hereto  attached. 

This  matter  was  therefore  duly  and  several  times  brought  to  the  attention  of  both 
branches  of  Congress.  Similar  bills  were  before  the  House  Public  Lands  Committee  dur- 
ing the  Forty-sixth  and  Forty-seventh  Congresses,  introduced  by  Hon.  C.  P.  Berry,  and 
in  the  Senate  by  Senator  Farley  of  California.  Senate  Bill  No.  311  was  favorable  reported 
by  the  Senate  Public  Lands  Committee  on  February  20,  1882,  and  passed  the  Senate  on 
May  19,  1882,  but  no  action  was  ever  had  on  this  measure  in  the  House. 

A  similar  bill.  Senate  No.  796,  was  again  introduced  by  Senator  Miller  of  California,  on 
the-eighteenth  December,  1883,  and  was  favorably  reported  from  the  Senate  Public  Lands 
Committee  on  June  9,  1884,  with  the  amendment  following,  to  wit: 

"And  the  sum  of  money  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  of  this  Act  is 
hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated." 


Ill 

This  claim  of  the  State  of  California,  so  long  overlooked  by  Congress,  is  well  founded 
in  equity,  similar  claims  having  never  as  yet  been  denied  in  any  single  instance  to  any  of 
the  public  land  States,  but,  on  the  contrary,  have  been  invariably  granted  by  prompt  and 
adequate  legislation  whenever  properly  asked  for.  The  total  amounts  received  by  each  of 
the  several  States,  up  to  June  30,  1880,  are  set  forth  in  tables  hereto  attached  and  made  a 
part  hereof. 

The  amount  that  the  State  of  California  would  be  entitled  to  receive,  up  to  June  30, 1883, 
under  this  bill,  is  $458,434  50,  and  as  fully  set  forth  in  an  official  statement  of  the  honor- 
able Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  hereto  attached  and  made  a  part  of  this 
report. 

Wherefore  your  committee  concur  in  recommending  the  passage  of  this  bill  as  amended 
by  the  Senate  Public  Lands  Committee  on  June  9,  1884,  in  a  similar  bill.  Senate  No.  796,  by 
adding  thereto  the  words  as  follows,  to  wit: 

"And  the  sum  of  money  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  of  this  Act  is 
hereby  appropriated  out  or  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated." 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  111. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.    December  10, 1883 — Read  twice,  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Public  Lands,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill : 

A  BILL 

Granting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  public  lands 

in  that  State. 

Whereas,  The  States  of  Ohio,  Louisiana,  Indiana,  Mississippi,  Illinois,  Alabama,  Mis- 
souri, Arkansas,  Michigan,  Florida,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Oregon,  Kansas,  Nevada, 
Nebraska,  and  Colorado,  constituting  the  list  of  all  the  public  land  States,  except  Califor- 
nia, have  each  received  a  certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public 
lands  situate  within  their  limits,  respectively;  and  whereas,  California  is  the  only  public 
land  State  that  has  not  received  any  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the 
public  lands  in  said  State ;  therefore. 

Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Senate  and  Hoiise  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  there  be,  and  is  hereby,  granted  to  the  State  of  California  five  per 
•centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  which  have  been  or  may  here- 
after be  made  in  said  State,  to  aid  in  the  support  of  the  public  or  common  schools  of  said 
State;  and  the  sum  of  money  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  of  this  Act  is 
hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

■State  of  Califobnia,  Department  of  State. 

I,  D.  M.  Burns,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of  California,  do  hereby  certify  that  I 
have  compared  the  annexed  copy  of  Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  1,  adopted  Febru- 
ary 9,  1881,  with  the  original  now  on  file  in  my  office,  and  that  the  same  is  a  correct  tran- 
script therefrom  and  of  the  whole  thereof. 

Witness  my  hand  and  the  great  seal  of  State,  at  office  in  Sacramento,  Cal.,  the  eighteenth 
day  of  Januarv,  A.  D.  1882. 

D.  M.  BURNS, 

[seal.]  '  Secretary  of  State. 

By  Thos.  H.  Reynolds,  Deputy. 

(Chapter  7.) 

Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  1,  relative  to  the  sale  of  public  lands. 

Whereas,  The  States  of  Ohio,  Louisiana,.  Indiana,  Mississippi,  Illinois,  Alabama,  Mis- 
souri, Arkansas,  Michigan,  Florida,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Oregon,  Kansas,  Nevada, 
Nebraska,  and  Colorado,  constituting  the  entire  list  of  public  land  States,  except  Califor- 
nia, have  each  received  a  certain  percentum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public 
lands  situate  within  their  limits,  respectively ;  and  whereas,  California  is  the  only  State 
of  the  public  land  States  that  has  not  received  any  percentum ;  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved  by  the  Senate,  the  Assembly  concurring,  First — That  the  Legislature  of  California 
does  hereby  memorialize  Congress  to  place  the  State  of  California  upon  the  same  footing 
as  regards  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  all  public  lands  in  said  State  as  the  other  States 
named  in  the  preamble,  and  to  give  California  all  the  benefits  and  payments  to  which 
said  States,  or  either  of  them,  are  entitled  under  all  Acts  of  Congress  heretofore  passed, 
or  that  may  hereafter  be  passed,  and  the  same,  when  granted,  to  be  dedicated  to  educa- 
tional purj)Oses. 

Second— That  our  Representatives  in  Congress  are  hereby  requested,  and  our  Senators 
instructed,  to  vote  for  and  in  all  honorable  ways  endeavor  to  secvire  the  passage  of  an  Act 
of  Congress  granting  this  State  five  per  centum  for  said  purposes. 


112 

Third— That  the  Governor  is  hereby  requested  to  forward  a  copy  of  this  memorial  to 
each  Senator  and  Representative  from  California  in  Congress,  for  his  information  and 
favorable  action  in  the  premises. 

W.  H.  PARKS, 

Speaker  of  the  Assembly. 
JNO.  MANSFIELD, 

President  of  the  Senate. 
Attest:  D.  M.  BURNS, 

Secretary  of  State. 
Adopted  February  9, 1881. 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  December  21,  1881.     j 
Sir:  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  nineteenth  instant,  inquiring  whether  an v  pub- 
lic lands  were  sold  in  California  prior  to  .July  1,  1857,  or  not ;  and  in  answer  thereto  I  have 
to  inform  you  that  the  records  of  this  office  show  that,  although  the  offices  at  Benicia  and 
Los  Angeles  were  open  in  1853,  no  sales  were  made  until  July  1, 1857. 

Very  respectfully, 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 
Hon.  C.  P.  Berry. 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  February  7,  1884.     ) 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt,  by  reference  from  the  Department  for 
report,  of  letter  dated  the  twenty-second  day  of  January,  1884,  from  Hon.  P.  B.  Plumb,. 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands'^  United  States  Senate,  inclosing  Senate  Bill 
No.  796,  granting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sale  of 
public  lands  in  the  State,  and  requesting  information  as  to  the  area  sold  that  would  be 
affected  by  the  bill. 

In  the  Acts  of  Congress  admitting  into  the  Union  what  are  known  as  public  land  States, 
with  the  exception  of  that  admitting  California  (September  9,  1850,  U.  S.  Stats.,  vol.  9, 
page  452),  a  provision  was  included  granting  to  said  States  two,  three,  and  five  per  cent, 
respectively,  of  the  net  proceeds  derived  from  the  sales  of  public  lands  within  their  limits 
in  aid  of  certain  internal  improvements  or  of  public  schools. 

As  the  Act  admitting  California  into  the  Union  did  not  provide  for  the  payment  of  any 
percentage  of  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands,  no  account  therefor  has  been  stated  in 
favor  of  said  State. 

The  amount  that  would  be  affected  by  the  passage  of  the  bill  referred  to,  not  including 
the  amount  derived  from  any  location  or  disposal  of  the  public  lands  other  than  cash 
sales,  including  mineral  land,'to  June  30, 1883,  is  $9,168,690  13,  and  five  per  cent  thereof  is. 
$458,434  50.    See  statement  herewith. 

1  return  herewith  the  letter  of  Senator  Plumb,  inclosing  Senate  Bill  No.  796. 

Very  respectfully, 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 
Hon.  H.  M.  Teller,  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 


113 

TABLE  No.  1. 

Acts  of  Congress  granting  to  the  several  States  of  the  United  States  certain  percentum  upon  the 
net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of  the  Public  Lands. 


States. 


Date  Granting. 


U.  S.  Stats. 


Vol.  Page. 


States. 


Date  Granting. 


U.S.  Stats. 


Vol.  Page 


Alabama. 


Arkansas 

Colorado . 
Florida  .. 

Iowa 

Illinois  -. 
Indiana. . 

'Kansas  .. 
Louisiana 

Missouri . 


Mississippi. 


Sept. 
Mar. 
May 
July 
Mar. 
Sept. 
June 
Sept. 
Mar. 
Mar. 
Mar. 
Mar. 
Mar. 
Dec. 
Mar. 
Apr. 
Sept. 
Apr. 
Apr. 
Sept. 
May 
Feb. 
Sept. 
Feb. 
May 
Mar. 
Sept. 
Sept. 
Mar. 
Maj'- 
July 
Mar. 


,1841. 
,  1819. 

,  1822. 
,  1836. 
,  1855. 
,  1841. 
,  1836. 
,1841. 
,  1875. 
,1845. 
,  1845. 
,  1845. 
,  1845. 
,  1846. 
,  1849. 
,  1818. 
,  1841. 
,  1818. 
,  1816. 
,  1841. 
,  1858. 
,  1811. 
,  1841. 
,  1859. 
,  1822. 
,  1820. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1817. 
,  1822. 
,  1836. 
;,  1857. 


457 
489 
674 
116 
630 
453 
58 
453 
476 
742 
788 
742 
789 
117 
349 
430 
453 
424 
290. 
453 
270 
643 
453 
388 
674 
547 
453 
457 
348 
674 
116 
200 


Mississippi 

Michigan 

Minnesota , 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

Ohio. 

Oregon 

Wisconsin 

New  Hampshire. 
Massachusetts  .. 
Rhode  Island  ... 

Connecticut 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania ... 

Delaware 

Maryland 

Virginia 

North  Carolina.. 
South  Carolina.. 

Georgia 

Kentucky 

Vermont 

Tennessee 

Maine 

Dist.  of  Columbia 


Sept.  4, 

June  23, 

Sept.  4 

Feb.  26; 

May  11 

Apr.  19: 

Mar.  16 

Mar.  3 

Apr.  30: 

Sept.  4, 

Feb.  14! 

Aug.  6. 

May  29, 

Sept.    ■ 

Sept. 

Sept. 

Sept. 

Sept. 

Sept. 

Sept. 

Sept. 

Sept. 

Sept. 

Sept.  4 

Sept, 

Sept. 

Sept, 

Sept, 

Sept, 

Sept, 

Sept, 


, 1841. 
,  1836. 
,  1841. 
,  1857. 
,  1858. 
',  1864. 
,1864. 
,  1803. 
,  1802. 
,  1841. 
,  1859. 
,  1846. 
,  1848. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 
,  1841. 


453 

60 
453 
167 
285 

49 

32 
326 
175 
453 
384 

58 
233 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 
453 


114 

TABLE  No.  2. 

Statement  of  the  Total  Amounts  of  Money  received  by  the  several  States  of  the  United  States  from 
the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of  the  Public  Lands  up  to  June  30, 1880. 


States. 

Al. 

Bl. 

A  2. 

B2. 

c. 

Total. 

Alabama 

$17,119  35 
3,134  60 

$2,107  71 
385  93 

$5,248  74 
1,348  19 

$649  43 
143  44 

$1,004,365  57 

227,359  05 

9,589  73 

$1,029,490  20 

Arkansas         

232,371  21 

9,589  73 
12,180  70 

Connecticut 

10,845  43 

2,695  30 

1,545  98 

20,256  43 

16,654  33 

23,994  54 

1,508  03 

1,335  27 

331  84 

190  33 

2,493  94 

2,050  46 

2,954  17 

185  67 

T)plflWJlT*P 

3,027  14 
30,711  73 

Florida      

28,975  44 

22,750  37 

Illinois           

29,635  02 
2,883  12 

2,223  29 
446  30 

712,744  82 
618,277  50 
626,075  16 
258,842  11 

763,307  92 

648,555  63 

Iowa 

627,768  86 

258,842  11 

24,731  31 
9,971  59 
17,554  90 
15,187  54 
25,807  92 
7,426  03 

3,044  88 
1,227  69 
2,161  33 
1,869  88 
3,177  43 
914  28 

"■" ~*' 

27,776  19 
329,781  88 

Louisiana       -  - 

2,827  99 

141  72 

315,612  89 

IMaine 

19,716  23 

IMarvland 

17,057  42 
28  985  35 

IVf  fl  s!Ma  pli  n  sptts 

Michigan 

1,141  79 

247  47 

471,344  55 
99,409  47 
987,832  28 
551,423  83 
116,578  67 
8,319  84 

481,074  12 

99,409  47 

Mississippi 

10,410  19 

12,608  57 

1,281  69 
1,552  35 

2,396  26 
8,388  24 

1,001,920  42 
574,670  38 

697  39 

116,578  67 

8,319  84 

New  Hampshire  . . . 

New  Jersey 

New  York 

9,955  64 
13,050  42 
84,974  15 
22,917  97 
53,157  53 

1,225  72 
1,606  75 
10,461  89 
2,821  63 
6,544  67 

11,181  36 

14,657  17 

95.436  04 

25,739  60 

Ohio 

923  64 

420  49 

596,634  10 
34,911  09 

657,680  43 

Oregon 

34,911  09 

Pennsylvania 

T?}inrlp  TslnnH 

60,313  27 

3,807  28 

16,218  15 

26,447  68 

10,213  61 

37,090  48 

1,082  45 

1,463  53 

7,425  68 

468  75 

1,996  75 

3.256  20 

1.257  48 
4,566  52 

133  27 
180  19 

67,738  95 

4,276  03 

18,214  90 

29,703  88 

Vermont 

11,47J  09 

Virp'Tiaifl 

41,657  00 

^    455,253  73 

456,469  45 

1,643  72 

' 

115 

TABLE  No.  3— A 1. 

Statement  showing  the  respective  Shares  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  of  the  United  States 
and  the  District  of  Columbia,  under  the  Distribution  Act  of  fourth  September,  I84I,  of  the  resi- 
due of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sale  of  the  Public  Lands  sold  in  the  half  year  ending  thir- 
tieth June,  I842. 


States,  Territories,  and  District  of  Columbia. 


Free  Popula- 
tion. 


Federal 
Numbers. 


Distributive 
Shares. 


Maine -. 

New  Hampshire 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island -.. 

Connecticut 

Vermont 

New  York 

■  New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

Delaware 

Maryland 

Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

Louisiana 

Tennessee 

Kentucky 

Ohio .■-.. 

Indiana -.. 

Illinois 

Missouri 

Arkansas 

Michigan 

Wisconsin _ 

Iowa 

Florida.-- 

District  of  Columbia. 


501,793 

284,573 

737,698 

108,825 

309,998 

291,948 

2,428,917 

372,632 

.1,723,969 

75,480 

380.282 

790,810 

507,602 

267,360 

410,448 

337,224 

180,440 

183,959 

646,151 

597,570 

l,519,4r>4 

685,863 

475,852 

325,462 

77,639 

212,267 

30,934 

43,096 

28,760 

39,018 


0 
1 

1 

5 

17 

0 

4 

674 

64 

2,605 

89,737 

448,987 

245,817 

327,038 

280,944 

253,532 

195,211 

168,452 

183.059 

182,258 

3 

3 

331 

58,240 

19,935 

0 

11 

16 

25,716 

4,694 


501,793 

284,574 

737,699 

108,828 

310,008 

291,948 

2,428,919 

373,036 

1,724,007 

77,043 

434,124 

1,060,202 

655,092 

463,583 

574,014 

489,343 

297,567 

285,030 

755,986 

706,925 

1,519,466 

685,865 

476,051 

360,406 

89,600 

212,267 

30,941 

43,106 

44,190 

41,834 


$17,554  90 

9,995  64 

25,807  92 

3,807  28 

10,845  43 

10,213  61 

84,974  15 

13,050  42 

60,313  27 

2,695  30 

15,187  54 

37,090  48 

22,917  97 

16,218  15 

20,256  43 

17,119  35 

10,410  19 

9,971  59 

26,447  68 

24,731  31 

53,157  53 

23,994  54 

•  16,654  33 

12,608  57 

3,134  60 

7,426  03 

1,082  45 

1,508  03 

1,515  96 

1,463  53 


Totals 14,576,034 


2,487,356 


16,068,447 


$562,144  18 


Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  |  - 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882.         j 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  Of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 


116 

TABLE  No.  4— B. 

Statement  showing^  the  respective  Shares  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  of  the  United  States 
and  the  District  of  Columbia,  under  the  Distribution  Act  of  fourth  September,  I84I,  of  the 
residue  of  the  net  jrroceeds  of  the  cash  sale  of  the  Public  Lands  sold  from  the  first  day  of 
July  to  the  twenty-ninth  of  August,  18^2,  inclusive. 


States,  Territoeies,  and  District  of  Columbia. 


Free 
Population. 


Slaves. 


Federal 
Numbers. 


Distributive 
Shares. 


Maine 

New  Hampshire 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut- 

Vermont 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

Delaware 

Maryland 

Virginia . 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia * 

Alabama 

Mississippi. _. 

Louisiana 

Tennessee 

Kentucky. 

Ohio... 

Indiana.- 

Illinois  -- 

Missouri 

Arkansas 

Michigan 

Wisconsin 

Iowa 

Florida 

District  of  Columbia 

Totals 


501,793 

284,573 

737,698 

103,825 

309,998 

291,948 

2,428,917 

372,632 

1,723,969 

75,480 

380,282 

790,810 

507,602 

267,360 

410,448 

337,224 

180,440 

183,959 

646,151 

597,570 

1,519,464 

685,863 

475,852 

325,462 

77.639 

212,267 

30,934 

43,096 

28,760 

39,018 


4 

647 

64 

2,605 

89,737 

448,987 

245,817 

327,038 

280,944 

253,532 

195,211 

168,452 

180,059 

182,258 

3 

3 

331 

58,240 

19,935 


11 

16 

25,717 

4,694 


501,793 

284,574 

737,699 

108,828 

310,008 

291,948 

2,428,919 

373,036 

1,724.007 

77,043 

434,124 

1,060,202 

655,092 

463,583 

579,014 

489,343 

297,567 

285,030 

755,986 

706,925 

1,519,466 

685,865 

476,051 

360,406 

89,600 

212,267 

30,941 

43,106 

44,190 

41,834 


14,576,034 


2,487,356 


16,068,447 


$2,161  33 

1,225  72 

3,177  43 

468  75 

1,335  27 

1,257  48 

10,461  89 

1.606  75 

7,425  68 

331  84 

1,869  88 

4,566  52 

2,821  63 

1,996  75 

2,493  94 

2,107  71 

1,281  69 

1,227  69 

3,256  20 

3,044  88 

6,544  67 

2,954  17 

2,650  46 

1,552  35 

385  93 

914  28 

133  27 

185  67 

190  33 

180  19 

$69,210  35 


Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office, 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882. 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 


117 

TABLE  No.  5— A  2. 

Statement  of  the  Additional  Alloioance  to  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Arkan- 
sas, Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  and  Michigan,  of  ten  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of 
the  cash  sale  of  the  Public  Lands  sold  in  the  half  year  ending  thirtieth  June,  1842,  under 
the  Distribution  Act  of  September  4,  I84I,  according  to  the  mode  prescribed  by  the  First  Comp- 
troller of  the  Treasury. 


States  and  Territories. 

Gross  proceeds  of 

Lands  Sold 
in  States  and  Ter- 
ritories. 

Proportion 

of  Expenses  to  be 

deducted. 

Net  proceeds  of 
Sales  after  deduct- 
ing proportion 
of  Expenses  from 
gross  proceeds. 

Additional 
allowance  of  ten  per 

cent  to  each  of 

the  new  States  on 

net  proceeds 

of  Sales  therein. 

Ohio               - 

$12,534  27 
39,125  53 

402,163  06 

113,832  94 
18,295  69 
38,377  32 
32,518  52 
71,228  19 
15,494  68 

743,570  20 
93,646  50 

$3,297  88 

10,294  29 

105,812  86 

29,950  51 

4,813  78 

10,097  43 

8,555  92 

18,740  80 

4,076  79 

195,640  26 

24,639  27 

$9,236  39 
28,831  24 

296,250  20 
83,882  43 
13,481  91 
28,279  89 
23,962  60 
52,487  39 
11,417  89 

547,929  94 
69,207  23 

$923  64 

Indiana 

2,883  12 
29,635  02 

Illinois 

Missouri 

8,388  24 
1,348  19 

2,827  99 

Arkansas 

Louisiana            

Mississippi 

2  396  26 

Ala  bania 

5,248  74 

Michigan 

1,141  79 

W^isconsin     _     _     . 

Iowa 

Totals 

$837,216  70 

$220,279  53 

$616,937  17 

$54,792  99 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882.    '  J 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 

TABLE  No.  6— B  2. 

Statement  of  the  Additional  Allowance  to  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Arkan- 
sas, Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  and  Michigan,  of  the  tender  cent  of  the  net  proceeds 
of  the  cash  sale  of  the  Public  Lands  sold  therein  respectively,  from  the  first  day  of  July  to 
the  twenty-ninth  of  August,  1842,  inclusive,  under  the  Distribution  Act  of  September  4,  I84I, 
according  to  the  mode  prescribed  by  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury. 


States  and  Territories. 

Gross  proceeds  of 
Sales  in  the  States 
and  Territories, 
deducting  propor- 
tion of  $5  43 
excess  of  repay  in 
Mississippi. 

Proportion  of 

Expenses  deducted 

from 

gross  proceeds. 

Net  proceeds  of 
Sales  after  deduct- 
ing from  the 
gross  proceeds  the 

proportion  of 
Expenses  as  stated. 

Additional  allow- 
ance to  the  above 

mentioned  States  of 
ten  per  cent  of  net 

proceeds  of  Lands 
sold  therein. 

Ohio 

$7,286  63 
7,733  95 

38,527  51 

12,085  07 
2,485  73 
2,455  96 

11,253  99 
4,288  38 

$3,081  76 
3,270  95 

16,294  59 
5,111  19 
1,051  30 
1,038  71 
4,759  69 
1,813  70 

$4,204  87 
4,463  00 

22,232  92 
6.973  88 
1,434  43 
1,417  25 
6,494  30 
2,474  68 

$420  49 

Indiana 

448  30 

Illinois 

2,223  29 

Missouri 

697  39 

Arkansas  

143  44 

Louisiana.. 

141  72 

Alabama 

649  43 

Michigan 

247  47 

Totals 

$86,117  22 

$36,421  89 

$49,695  33 

$4,969  53 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office, 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882. 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 


118 

TABLE  No.  7— C. 

Statement  of  the  Amounts  which  have  accrued  to  the  following  named  States  up  to  the  thirtieth 
June,  1880,  on  account  of  the  two,  three,  and  five  per  cent,  upon  the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash 
"     of  the  Public  Lands  within  their  respective  limits. 


States. 

Two  Per  Cent. 

Three  Per  Cent. 

Five  Per  Cent. 

Aggregate. 

A 1  ji1"»nmfi 

$401,782  23 

$602,583  34 

$1,004,365  57 
227,359  05 

$227,359  05 

9,589  73 

28,975  44 

626,075  16 

Colorado                             

■ 

9,589  73 

Florida                                  



28,975  44 

626,075  16 

712,744  82 
618,277  50 

712,744  82 

618,277  50 

Kansas                          -  

258,842  11 
315,612  89 

258,842  11 

liOuisiana 

315,612  89 

TVTi «!  si  s!si  nni 

395,142  08 

15,587  78 

592,690  20 
535,836  05 

987,832  28 

IVTisisjonTi 

551,423  83 

471,344  55 

99,409  47 

8,319  84 

116,578  67 
34,911  09 

471,344  55 

Minnesota                               

99,409  47 

Nevada 

8,319  84 

Nebraska 

116,578  67 

34,911  09 

Ohio                         .       -   -- 

596,634  10 

596,634  10 

"Wisconsin                                   

455,253  73 

455,253  73 

Totals -- - 

$812,512  09 

$3,658,766  01 

$2,652,271  73 

$7,123,549  83 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office,  \ 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  14,  1882.      j 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  caused  the  foregoing  table  to  be  examined 
and  compared  with  the  records  of  this  office,  and  find  it  to  be  correct. 

N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 


EXHIBIT  No.  26. 
CALIFORNIA  LAND  SALES. 

The  bill  (S.  994)  granting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  cent  of  the 
net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  lands  in  said  State  was  announced  as  next  in 
order. 

Mr.  Allison.     I  object  to  that. 

The  President  pro  tempore.  Objection  being  made,  the  bill  goes  over 
under  the  rule. 

Mr.  Dolph.  I  believe  the  Senator  from  California  (Mr.  Stanford)  desires 
it  to  keep  its  place  on  the  calendar  without  prejudice. 

The  President  pro  tempore.  Does- the  Senator  from  Iowa  object  to  its 
retaining  its  place  on  the  calendar? 

Mr.  Allison.     I  do  not. 

The  President  pro  tempore.     The  bill  will  retain  its  place  on  the  calendar. 

[Congressional  Record  of  May  18,  1886,  page  4769.] 


119 

EXHIBIT  No.  27. 

CALIFORNIA  LAND  SALES. 

The  bill  (S.  994)  granting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  cent  of  the 
net  proceeds  of  the  sal^  of  lands  in  said  State,  was  announced  as  next  in 
order. 

Mr.  Plumb.     I  think  that  had  better  go  over. 

Mr.  Dolph.     I  ask  that  it  retain  its  place  on  the  calendar. 

The  Presiding  Officer.  If  there  be  no  objection,  the  bill  will  be  passed 
over,  retaining  its  place  on  the  calendar. 

[Congressional  Record  of  June  8,  1886,  page  5582.] 


EXHIBIT  No.  28. 

CALIFORNIA  LAND  SALES. 

The  bill  (S.  994)  granting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  cent  of  the 
net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  lands  in  said  State,  was  announced  as  next  in 
order. 

Mr,  Allison.     I  object. 

The  President  pro  tempore.     Objection  being  made,  the  bill  goes  over. 

[Congressional  Record  of  June  19,  1886,  page  6155.] 


EXHIBIT  No.  29. 

CALIFORNIA  LAND  SALES. 

The  bill  (S.  994),  granting  to  the  State  of  California  five  per  cent  of  the 
net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  lands  in  said  State,  was  announced  as  next  in 
order. 

Mr.  Miller.     Let  that  go  over. 

The  President  pro  tempore.     The  bill  will  be  passed  over. 

[Congressional  Record  of  July  9,  1886,  page  7028.] 


EXHIBIT  No.  30. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  9478. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.    July  12,  1886 — Referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Appropriations  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

AMENDMENT 

Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Mitchell,  of  Oregon,  to  the  bill  (H.  R. 
9478)  making  appropriations  for  sundry  civil  expenses  of  the  Government 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty- 
seven,  and  for  other  purposes,  viz.:  Insert  the  following: 

And  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  is  hereby  authorized  and 
directed  to  have  reported  to  him  by  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 


120 

Office,  who  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  report  the  same,  the 
amounts  of  the  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  cash  sales  of 
the  pubHc  lands  made  by  the  United  States  in  any  of  the  public  land 
States  since  the  admission  of  such  States;  and  the  sum  of  money  neces- 
sary to  pay  such  States  said  five  per  centum  is  hereby  appropriated ;  and 
when  the  accounts  for  the  same  shall  have  been  duly  audited  by  the  proper 
accounting  officers,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  hereby  authorized  and 
directed  to  pay  the  same  in  all  cases  where  the  same  have  not  been  here- 
tofore paid. 


EXHIBIT  No.  31. 


Fiscal  Years. 

Net  Proceeds. 

Five  per 

centum  of 

Net  Proceeds. 

Interest  on 

said  per 

centum  for 

one  year  at  7 

per  cent. 

No.  of 
Years. 

Interest  at 

7  per  cent  for 

the  number 

of  Years. 

1858 ) 

1859 / 

I860 

$82,118  51 

4,283  41 
62,430  51 

31,313  93 

101,239  02 

90,151  16 

339,945  42 

578,412  60 

2,166,280  85 
583,578  78 
347,060  21 
424,366  71 
447,722  93 
460,576  33 
606,897  66 
484,994  54 
435,637  27 
349,684  47 
171,094  08 

•  140,066  84 
255,754  61 
284,316  88 
720,763  41 
814,782  63 
625,634  33 

$4,105  93 

214  17 
3,121  53 

1,565  70 

5,061  95 
4,507  56 
16,997  27 
28,920  63 
108,314  04 
29,178  94 
17,353  01 
21,218  34 
22,386  15 
23,02«  82 
30,344  88 
24,249  73 
21,781  86 
17,484  22 
8,554  70 
7,003  34 
12,787  73 
14,215  84 
36,038  17 
40,739  13 
31,281  71 

$287  41 

14  99 
218  51 

109  60 

354  34 
315  53 

1,189  81 

2,024  44 

7,581  98 

2,042  52 

1,214  71 

1,485  28 

1,567  03 

1,612  02 

2,124  14 

1,697  49 

1,524  73 

1,223  90 

598  83 

490  23 

895  14 

995  11 

2,522  67 

2,851  74 

2,189  72 

27 

26 
25 

22 

21 

20 

19 

18 

17 

16 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

$7,760  07 
389  74 

1861                                 

5,462  75 

1862 ^ 

1863 y 

1864 > 

1865                          

2,411  20 
7,441  14 

1866 --- 

6,310  60 

1867 - - 

22,606  39 

1868 --- 

36,439  92 

1869                      -                --     -- 

128,893  66 

1870 - 

32,680  32 

1871 

18,220  65 

1872 - 

20,793  92 

1873                        

.    20,371  39 

1874 

19,344  24 

1875 

23,365  54 

3876 -. 

16,974  90 

1877            -- 

13,722  57 

1878 

9,791  20 

1879 .* -- 

4,191  81 

1880 - -.- 

2,941  38 

1881          

4,475  70 

1882                              -       -     -- 

3,980  44 

1883 

7,568  01 

1884 --. 

5,703  48 

1885          

2,189  72 

Totals 

$10,609,107  09 

$530,455  35 

$37,131  87 

$424,030  74 

EXHIBITS 


DIRECT  TAX  CLAIM 


EXHIBIT  No.  1. 

State  of  California,  Executive  Department, 
Sacramento,  December  12,  1882. 


! 


John  Mullan,  Esq.^  Washington^  D.  C: 

Sir  :  It  having  come  to  my  knowledge  that  measures  are  being  taken 
by  several  of  the  States,  through  their  duly  appointed  agents,  to  recover 
from  the  National  Government  certain  moneys  paid  by  such  States  under 
an  Act  of  Congress,  approved  August  5,  1861,  entitled  "An  Act  to  provide 
increased  revenue  from  imports  to  pay  interest  on  the  public  debt,  and  for 
other  purposes,"  and  as  the  State  of  California  has  paid  the  sum  of  two 
hundred  and  fifty-four  thousand  five  hundred  and  thirty-eight  ($254,538) 
dollars  under  the  provisions  of  said  Act,  it  being  the  total  amount  assessed 
against  the  State,  I,  therefore,  following  the  action  of  our  sister  States,  do 
appoint  you  as  the  agent  of  the  State  of  California  to  act  in  her  behalf  in 
taking  such  steps  as  may  be  necessary  to  recover  from  the  United  States 
Government  the  sums  of  money  so  paid  under  said  Act.  Your  compensa- 
tion for  services  rendered  thereunder  to  be  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  State 
Legislature. 

GEORGE  C.  PERKINS, 

Governor  of  California. 


EXHIBIT  No.  2. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  108.    Printer's  No.,  108. 

In  the   House  of  Representatives.     December  10,  1883 — Read  twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

For  the  relief  of  the  State  of  California. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  California 
the  sum  of  thirty-eight  thousand  one  hundred  and  eighty  dollars  and 
seventy-nine  cents;  the  same  being  fifteen  per  centum  of  two  hundred  and 
fifty-four  thousand  five  hundred  and  thirty-eight  dollars  and  sixty-six 
cents,  her  quota  of  the  direct  tax  assessed  under  the  Act  of  August  fifth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  and  by  her  paid  without  any  expense 
whatsoever  to  the  United  States,  and  which  percentum  has  not  heretofore 
been  paid  or  allowed  the  State  of  California. 


124 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  810. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  December  19,  1883 — Mr.  Miller  of 
California  asked,  and  by  unanimous  consent  obtained,  leave  to  bring  in  the 
following  bill;  which  was  read  twice,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Finance. 

A  BILL 

For  the  relief  of  the  State  of  California. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of 
California  the  sum  of  thirty-eight  thousand  one  hundred  and  eighty  dollars 
and  seventy-nine  cents;  the  same  being  fifteen  per  centum  of  two  hundred 
and  fifty-four  thousand  five  hundred  and  thirty-eight  dollars  and  sixty-six 
cents,  her  quota  of  the  direct  tax  assessed  under  the  Act  of  August  fifth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  and  by  her  paid  without  any  expense 
whatsoever  to  the  United  States,  and  which  percentum  has  not  heretofore 
been  paid  or  allowed  the  State  of  California. 


EXHIBIT  No.  3. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  K.  953.    Printer's  No.,  983. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.      December  11,  1883 — Read  twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Cassidy  introduced  the  following  bill- 

A   BILL 

To  authorize  the  payment  of  certain  money  to  the  State  of  Nevada. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Nevada 
the  sum  of  six  hundred  and  eighty-eight  dollars  and  eighty-four  cents,  the 
same  being  fifteen  per  centum  of  four  thousand  five  hundred  and  ninety- 
two  dollars  and  sixty-six  cents,  her  quota,  when  a  Territory,  of  the  direct 
tax  assessed  under  the  Act  of  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one, 
and  by  her  paid  without  any  expense  whatsoever  to  the  United  States,  and 
which  percentum  has  not  heretofore  been  paid  or  allowed  the  State  of 
Nevada. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  655. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  December  13,  1883 — Mr.  Jones  of 
Nevada  asked,  and  by  unanimous  consent  obtained,  leave  to  bring  in  the 
following  bill;  which  was  read  twice,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Claims: 

A   BILL 

For  the  relief  of  the  State  of  Nevada. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 


125 

be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Nevada 
the  sum  of  six  hundred  and  eighty-eight  dollars  and  eighty-nine  cents,  the 
same  being  fifteen  per  centum  of  four  thousand  five  hundred  and  ninety- 
two  dollars  and  sixty-six  cents,  her  quota,  when  a  Territory,  of  the  direct 
tax  assessed  under  the  Act  of  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one, 
and  by  her  paid  without  any  expense  whatsoever  to  the  United  States,  and 
which  percentum  has  not  heretofore  been  paid  or  allowed  the  State  of 
Nevada. 


EXHIBIT  No.  4. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  511, 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  December  10,  1883 — Mr.  Slater 
asked,  and  by  unanimous  consent  obtained,  leave  to  bring  in  the  following 
bill,  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Claims: 

A  BILL 

For  the  relief  of  the  State  of  Oregon. 

Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Oregon 
the  sum  of  five  thousand  two  hundred  and  seventy-one  dollars  and  nine 
cents,  the  same  being  fifteen  per  centum  of  thirty-five  thousand  one  hun- 
dred and  forty  dollars  and  sixty-six  cents,  her  quota  of  the  direct  tax 
assessed  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  by  her  paid  without  any 
expense  whatsoever  to  the  United  States,  and  which  percentum  has  not 
heretofore  been  paid  or  allowed  the  State  of  Oregon. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  1310.    Printer's  No.,  1360. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     December  11,  1883 — Read  twice,  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  George  introduced  the  following  bill  : 

A  BILL 

For  the  relief  of  the  State  of  Oregon. 

Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Oregon 
the  sum  of  five  thousand  two  hundred  and  seventy-one  dollars  and  nine 
cents,  the  same  being  fifteen  per  centum  of  thirty-five  thousand  one  hun- 
dred and  forty  dollars  and  sixty-six  cents,  her  quota  of  the  direct  tax 
assessed  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  by  her  paid  without  any 
expense  whatsoever  to  the  United  States,  and  which  percentum  has  not 
heretofore  been  paid  or  allowed  the  State  of  Oregon. 


126 
EXHIBIT  No.  5. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session. 
Se7iate  Bill  No.  511,  Senate  Bill  No.  655,  Senate  Bill  No.  810. 

Senate  Bill  No.  511,  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Hon.  James  H.  Slater 
of  Oregon,  December  10,  1883,  and  Senate  Bill  No.  655,  introduced  by 
Hon.  J.  P.  Jones  of  Nevada,  December  13,  1883,  and  Senate  Bill  No.  810, 
introduced  by  Hon.  John  F.  Miller  of  California,  December  19,  1883,  have 
each  and  all  but  one  object,  to  wit: 

To  allow  to  each  of  said  States  fifteen  per  centum  of  the  amounts  by 
them  respectively  paid  into  the  U.  S.  Treasury  as  their  proportion  of  the 
direct  tax  levied  upon  and  apportioned  to  each  of  said  States  under  the 
Direct  Tax  Act  of  fifth  August,  1861  (U.  S.  Stats.,  vol.  12,  page  294),  and 
paid  by  said  States  respectively  without  any  expense  whatsoever  to  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  or  any  of  its  officers. 

Under  Section  8  of  said  Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  there  was 
apportioned: 

To  the  State  of  California,  the  sum  of. $254,538  66 

To  the  State  of  Oregon,  the  sum  of 35,140  66 

To  the  State  of  Nevada,  the  sum  of - 4,592  QQ 

Under  Section  9  of  said  Act  the  appointment  of  assessors  and  collectors 
was  provided  for  in' each  and  every  State  and  Territory,  and  the  subdivision 
of  said  States  and  Territories  into  collection  districts  for  the  purpose  of 
assessing  and  collecting  said  tax,  said  appointments  to  be  made  after 
February,  1862. 

Section  11  of  said  Act  provided  for  the  subdividing  each  collection  dis- 
trict into  subdistricts,  with  the  authority  to  appoint  assistant  assessors 
therein,  etc. 

Section  13  of  said  Act  provided  that  the  assessments  and  collection 
should  be  made  upon  the  assessed  value  of  the  properties  in  each  district 
as  ascertained  in  April,  1862,  etc. 

Section  22  of  said  Act  provided  for  advertising  assessment  list,  valua- 
tions, and  enumerations  in  each  and  every  district,  and  that  the  officers 
should  visit  each  and  every  county  seat  in  each  of  such  districts,  etc. 

Section  24  of  said  Act  provided  for  the  creation  of  a  Board  of  Assessors 
in  each  State,  etc. 

Section  25  of  said  Act  provided  for  the  appointment  of  clerks  to  such 
Boards,  etc. 

Section  30  of  said  Act  provided  for  the  pay  of  such  assessors  and  assist- 
ant assessors,  etc. 

Section  34  of  said  Act  provided  that  the  collector  should  appoint  as 
many  deputies  as  he  might  think  proper,  etc. 

Section  35  of  said  Act  provided  for  other  expenditures  of  money  for 
advertising,  etc.,  and  for  distraining  upon  the  property  of  the  people  in 
each  of  said  districts,  etc. 

Sections  36  and  38  of  said  Act  provided  for  more  expenditures  of 
money,  etc. 

Section  39  of  said  Act  provided  for  fees  to  clerks,  etc. 

Section  40  of  said  Act  provided  for  a  period  of  fifteen  months,  beginning 
with  the  annual  day  (April  1,  1862),  with  respect  to  the  taxes  contained 
in  the  lists  transmitted  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


127 

Section  48  of  said  Act  provided  for  salaries  of  said  collectors  and  assist- 
ants, reaching  a  maximum  of  $6,000,  with  contingent  and  other  ex- 
penses, etc. 

Now  it  was  estimated,  in  view  of  all  the  premises  and  necessities  of  the 
situation,  that  the  costs  to  the  United  States  in  each  State  and  Territory 
for  compensation  to  collectors  and  assistant  collectors,  assessors  and  assist- 
ant assessors,  per  diem  clerks  and  assistant  clerks,  percentages  prescribed 
and  allowed  to  assessors  and  assistant  assessors,  and  to  collectors,  with 
other  and  necessary  and  contingent  expenses,  advertising,  traveling  ex- 
penses, rents,  postage,  and  the  usual  et  ceteras  always  to  be  found  in  the 
return  of  those  who  disburse  public  moneys,  would  aggregate  a  sum  of 
from  ten  to  fifteen  per  centum  of  the  total  tax  authorized  to  be  collected. 

In  view  thereof,  Congress  provided,  in  the  fifty-third  section  of  said  Act, 
that  any  State,  Territory,  or  district  may  assume  and  pay  its  quota,  in  its 
own  way,  by  and  through  its  own  officers;  and  that  if  any  State,  Territory, 
or  the  District  of  Columbia  shall  give  notice,  by  the  Governor  or  other 
proper  officer  thereof,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States,  on  or  before  the  second  Tuesday  of  February  next  thereafter,  of  its 
intention  to  assume  and  pay,  or  to  assess,  collect,  and  pay  into  the  Treasury 
of  the  United  States  the  direct  tax  imposed  by  this  Act,  said  State,  Ter- 
ritory, or  district  shall  be  entitled  to  a  deduction  of  fifteen  per  centum  on 
such  portion  of  its  quota  as  shall  have  been  actually  paid  into  the  Treas- 
ury of  the  United  States  on  or  before  the  last  day  of  June  in  the  year  to 
which  such  payment  relates,  and  of  ten  per  centum  on  such  part  or  parts  of 
its  quota  as  shall  have  been  actually  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States  on  or  before  the  last  day  of  September  in  the  year  to  which  such 
payment  relates.  The  same  section  also  provides  that  the  amounts  appor- 
tioned to  any  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia  may  be  paid  in 
whole  or  in  part  by  the  release  of  such  State,  Territory,  or  District  to  the 
United  States  of  any  "  liquidated  and  determined  claim  of  such  State, 
Territory,  or  District  of  equal  amount  against  the  United  States,"  and  that 
in  such  release  the  same  abatement  shall  be  allowed  as  would  be  allowed 
in  case  of  payment  of  the  direct  tax  in  money. 

A  subsequent  Act,  approved  May  13,  1862,  extends  the  provisions  of 
Section  53,  above  referred  to,  to  war  claims  which  may  be  presented  on  or 
before  the  thirtieth  of  July,  1862. 

Now  all  three  of  these  States  have  heretofore  paid  into  the  public  Treas- 
ury of  the  United  States,  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  several  amounts  assessed 
to  them  respectively,  and  without  any  expense  whatsoever  to  the  United 
States,  and  the  same  principles  of  equity  as  extended  to  other  States 
should  be  now  extended  to  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada,  even  though 
they  did  not  come  strictly  up  to  the  directory  requirement  as  to  the  exact 
date  of  payment. 

All  three,  however,  strictly  conformed  to  the  underlying  principle  in  said 
Section  53,  by  saving  to  the  United  States  all  costs  of  assessment  and  col- 
lection in  the  premises,  by  defra5dng  all  such  costs  and  expenses  themselves, 
and  thereby  have  a  good  claim  in  equity  for  the  amount  of  the  fifteen  per 
centum  deduction  provided  for  in  said  Section  53. 

First — California  paid  into  the  United  States  Treasury: 

On  Octobers,  1862 $63,839  31 

On  February  26,  1863. 183,606  10 

On  January  30,1883 495  72 

Aggregating $247,941  13 


128 

Now  fifteen  per  centum  of  $247,941  13  is  $37,191  16,  and  which  sum  is 
now  equitably  due  the  State  of  Cahfornia  under  the  terms  of  said  Senate 
Bill  No.  810,  which  should  be  amended  so  as  to  read  $37,191  16,  instead  of 
$38,180  79,  as  stated  in  said  bill. 

Second — The  Territory  of  Nevada,  on  January  18,  1864,  paid  into  the 
U.  S.  Treasury  the  sum  of  $4,592  33,  and  without  any  expense  whatsoever 
to  the  United  States;  the  fifteen  per  centum  of  which  sum  is  $688  84,  and 
which  sum  is  now  equitably  due  under  Senate  Bill  No.  655,  to  the  State  of 
Nevada,  as  successor  to  the  Territory  of  Nevada. 

Third — The  State  of  Oregon  assumed  said  debt  in  1864,  and  paid  into 
the  United  States  Treasury,  without  any  expense  whatsoever  to  the  United 
States,  as  follows,  to  wit: 

On  December  13,  1881 $1,891  60 

On  March  31,  1883 33,249  07 

Aggregating $35,140  67 

The  fifteen  per  centum  of  which  is  $5,271  09,  and  which  sum  is  now 
equitably  due  under  Senate  Bill  No.  511,  to  the  State  of  Oregon. 

It  is  therefore  suggested  that  a  substitute  of  one  bill  for  these  three  bills 
may  be  reported  by  the  honorable  committee  having  the  same  in  charge, 
and  of  the  tenor,  as  follows,  to  wit: 

A  BILL 

For  the  relief  of  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada. 

Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Senate  and,  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of 
California,  the  sum  of  thirty-seven  thousand  one  hundred  and  ninety-one 
dollars  and  sixteen  cents;  and  to  the  State  of  Nevada,  the  sum  of  six  hun- 
dred and  eighty-eight  dollars  and  eighty-four  cents;  and  to  the  State  of 
Oregon,  the  sum  of  five  thousand  two  hundred  and  seventy-one  dollars 
and  nine  cents;  the  same  being  fifteen  per  centum  of  the  amounts  of  direct 
tax  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  by  said  States  respectively, 
under  the  Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  without  any  expense  or  costs 
whatsoever  incurred  therein  by  the  United  States,  and  which  percentum 
has  not  heretofore  been  paid  or  allowed  to  said  States,  or  to  any  of  them. 
Very  respectfully, 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
State  Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada. 


EXHIBIT  No.  6. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    House  Bills  Nos.  108,  953, 1310. 

House  Bill  No.  108,  introduced  December  10,  1883,  by  Hon.  Barclay  Hen- 
ley, of  California ;  House  Bill  Ne.  953,  introduced  December  11,  1883,  by 
Hon.  George  W.  Cassidy,  of  Nevada;  House  Bill  No.  1310,  introduced 
December  11,  1883,  by  Hon.  M.  C.  George,  of  Oregon; 

Have  for  their  object,  respectively : 

To  allow  to  each  of  said  States  fifteen  per  centum  of  the  amounts  by 
them  respectively  paid  into  the  United  States  Treasury  as  their  proportion 


129 

of  the  direct  tax  levied  upon  and  apportioned  to  each  of  said  States  under 
the  Direct  Tax  Act  of  the  fifth  of  August,  1861  (U.  S.  Stats.,  vol.  12,  p. 
292) ,  and  paid  by  said  States,  respectively,  without  any  expense  whatso- 
ever to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or  any  of  its  officers. 

Under  Section  8  of  said  Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  there  was 
apportioned : 

To  the  State  of  California,  the  sum  of $254,538  67 

To  the  State  of  Oregon 35,140  67 

To  the  Territory  of  Nevada 4,592  67 

[See  letters  of  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  February  11, 
1884,  and  of  the  First  Comptroller,  of  February  9,  1884,  herewith  attached, 
marked  "A"  and  "  B,"  and  made  a  part  hereof.] 

Under  Section  9  of  said  Act,  the  appointment  of  assessors  and  collect- 
ors was  provided  for  in  each  and  every  State  and  Territory,  and  the 
subdivision  of  said  States  and  Territories  into  collection  districts  for  the 
purpose  of  assessing  and  collecting  said  tax,  said  appointments  to  be  made 
after  February,  1862. 

Section  11  of  said  Act  provided  for  the  subdividing  each  collection  dis- 
trict into  sub-districts,  with  authority  to  appoint  assistant  assessors  therein, 
etc. 

Section  13  of  said  Act  provided  that  the  assessments  and  collection 
should  be  made  upon  the  assessed  value  of  the  properties  in  each  district, 
as  ascertained  in  April,  1862,  etc. 

Section  22  of  said  Act  provided  for  advertising  assessment  list,  valu- 
ations, and  enumerations  in  each  and  every  district,  and  that  the  officers 
should  visit  each  and  every  county  seat  in  each  of  such  districts,  etc. 

Section  24  of  said  Act  provided  for  the  creation  of  a  Board  of  Assessors 
in  each  State,  etc. 

Section  25  of  said  Act  provided  for  the  appointment  of  clerks  to  such 
Boards,  etc. 

Section  30  of  said  Act  provided  for  the  pay  of  such  assessors  and  assist- 
ant assessors. 

Section  34  of  said  Act  provided  that  the  collector  should  appoint  as 
many  deputies  as  he  might  think  proper,  etc. 

Section  35  of  said  Act  provided  for  other  expenditures  of  money  for 
advertising,  etc.,  and  for  distraining  upon  the  property  of  the  people  in 
each  of  said  districts,  etc. 

Sections  36  and  38  of  said  Act  provided  for  more  expejiditures  of 
money,  etc. 

Section  39  of  said  Act  provided  for  fees  to  clerks,  etc. 

Section  40  of  said  Act  provided  for  a  period  of  fifteen  months,  begin- 
ning with  the  annual  day  (April  1,  1862),  with  respect  to  the  taxes  con- 
tained in  the  lists  transmitted  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Section  48  of  said  Act  provided  for  the  salaries  of  said  collectors  and 
assistants,  reaching  a  maximum  of  $6,000,  with  contingent  and  other 
expenses,  etc. 

In  other  words,  this  Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  the  fifty- 
eight  sections  comprising  it,  provided  for  an  immense  and  expensive 
Federal  machinery  to  be  organized  and  to  be  set  in  motion  in  every  State 
and  Territory  of  the  United  States,  for  the  assessment  of  the  property, 
and  collection  of  the  twenty  million  dollars  direct  tax,  provided  for  in 
Section  8  of  said  Act. 

Now  it  was  estimated,  in  view  of  all  the  premises  and  necessities  of  the 


130 

situation,  that  the  costs  to  the  United  States  in  each  State  and  Territory, 
for  compensation  to  collectors  and  assistant  collectors,  assessors  and 
assistant  assessors,  per  diem  clerks  and  assistant  clerks,  percentages  pre- 
scribed and  allowed  to  assessors  and  assistant  assessors,  and  to  collectors, 
with  other  and  necessary  and  contingent  expenses,  advertising,  traveling 
expenses,  rents,  postage,  and  the  usual  et  ceteras  always  to  be  found  in  the 
return  of  those  who  disburse  public  moneys,  would  aggregate  a  sum  of 
from  ten  to  fifteen  per  centum  of  the  total  tax  authorized  to  be  collected. 

In  view  thereof  Congress  provided,  in  the  fifty-third  section  of  said  Act, 
that  any  State,  Territory,  or  District,  may  assume  and  pay  its  quota  in  its 
own  way,  by  and  through  its  own  officers;  and  that  if  any  State,  Territory, 
or  District  of  Columbia,  shall  give  notice,  by  the  Governor  or  other  proper 
officer  thereof,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  on 
or  before  the  second  Tuesday  of  February  next  thereafter,  of  its  intention 
to  assume  and  pay,  or  to  assess,  collect,  and  pay  into  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States  the  direct  tax  imposed  by  this  Act,  said  State,  Territory,  or 
District  shall  be  entitled  to  a  deduction  of  fifteen  per  centum  on  such 
portion  of  its  quota  as  shall  have  been  actually  paid  into  the  Treasury  of 
the  United  States  on  or  before  the  last  day  of  June  in  the  year  to  which 
such  payment  relates;  and  of  ten  per  centum  on  such  part  or  parts  of  its 
quota  as  shall  have  been  actually  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States,  on  or  before  the  last  day  of  September  in  the  year  to  which  such 
payment  relates. 

The  same  section  provides  also  that  the  amounts  apportioned  to  any 
State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  may  be  paid  in  whole  or  in 
part  by  the  release  of  such  State,  Territory,  or  District,  to  the  United 
States  of  any  "liquidated  and  determined  claim  of  such  State,  Territory, 
or  District,  of  equal  amount  against  the  United  States,"  and  that  in  such 
release  the  same  abatement  shall  be  allowed  as  would  be  allowed  in  case 
of  payment  of  the  district  tax  in  money. 

A  subsequent  Act,  approved  May  13, 1862,  extends  the  provisions  of  Sec- 
tion 53  above  referred  to,  to  war  claims  which  may  be  presented  on  or 
before  the  thirtieth  of  July,  1862. 

Now  all  these  three  States  have  heretofore  paid  into  the  public  Treasury 
of  the  United  States,  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  several  amounts  assessed  to 
them  respectively  and  without  any  expense  whatsoever  to  the  United 
States,  and  the  same  principles  of  equity  as  extended  to  other  States  should 
be  now  extended  to  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada,  even  though  they  did 
not  come  strictly  up  to  the  directory  requirements  as  to  the  exact  date  of 
payment. 

All  these,  however,  strictly  conformed  to  the  underlying  principle  in  said 
Section  53,  by  saving  to  the  United  States  all  costs  of  assessment  and  col- 
lection in  the  premises,  by  defrajdng  all  such  costs  and  expenses  them- 
selves, and  thereby  have  a  good  claim  in  equity  for  this  amount  of  the  fifteen 
per  centum  deduction  provided  for  in  said  Section  53. 

First — California  paid  into  the  United  States  Treasury: 

On  October  2, 1862 .|63,839  31 

On  February  26,  1863 183,606  10 

On  January  30,  1883... 495  72 

Aggregating $247,941  13 

Now  fifteen  per  centum  of  $247,941  13  is  $17,191  16,  and  which  sum  is 
now  equitably  due  the  State  of  California  under  the  terms  of  said  House 
Bill  No.  6772. 


131 

Second — The  Territory  of  Nevada,  on  January  18,  1864,  paid  into  the 
United  States  Treasury  the  sum  of  $4,592  33,  and  without  any  expense 
whatever  to  the  United  States,  the  fifteen  per  centum  of  which  sum  is 
$688  34,  and  which  sum  is  now  equitably  due,  under  the  terms  of  said 
House  Bill  No.  6772,  to  the  State  of  Nevada,  as  successor  to  the  Territory 
of  Nevada. 

Third — The  State  of  Oregon  assumed  said  debt  October  20,  1862,  and 
paid  into  the  United  States  Treasury,  without  any  expense  whatever  to  the 
United  States,  as  follows,  to  wit : 

On  December  13,1881.- $1,891  60 

On  March  31, 1883... 33,249  07 

Aggregating... $35,140  67 

The  fifteen  per  centum  of  which  is  $5,271  09,  and  which  sum  is  now 
equitably  due,  under  the  terms  of  House  Bill  No.  6772,  to  the  State  of 
Oregon. 

A  similar  measure,  identical  even  in  language,  was  passed  by  Congress 
in  August,  1882,  for  the  State  of  Kansas,  and  attached  to  the  Deficiency 
Bill  (see  U.  S.  Stats.,  vol.  22,  p.  261),  and  which  measure  was  recom- 
mended by  the  Treasury  Department  in  a  letter  of  March  28,  1862,  from 
the  First  Comptroller  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  copy  of 
which  is  hereto  annexed,  marked  ''  C,"  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  in 
which  letter  said  Department  called  attention  to  the  fact  of  the  equity  and 
justice  in  all  cases  like  that  of  Kansas. 

The  cases  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada  are  quite  identical  with 
that  of  Kansas,  differing  only  in  this:  that  the  equity  in  the  cases  of  Cali- 
fornia, Oregon,  and  Nevada  is  even  greater  than  it  was  in  the  State  of 
Kansas. 

Very  respectfully, 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
State  Agent  and  Counsel  for  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada. 

"A." 

Treasury  Department,  First  Comptroller's  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  February  9,  1884.      j" 

Hon.  Chares  J.  Folger,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury: 

Sir  :  By  reference  and  request  of  your  office,  I  have  the  honor  to  return 
herewith  the  letter  of  the  Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  of  the  thirtieth  ultimo,  in 
relation  to  the  direct  tax  account  with  California,  Nevada,  and  Oregon, 
respectively,  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  to  wit : 

The  quota  of  California  under  said  Act  was $254,538  67 

The  deposits  on  account  thereof,  per  covering  warrants : 

No.  5,  of  December  31,  1862 $63,838  31 

No.  2,  of  March  31,  1863 183,606  10 

No.  2566,  of  June  30,  1883 495  72 

247,941  13 

Leaving  a  balance  due  the  United  States  of $6,597  54 

The  quota  of  Nevada  under  the  said  Act  was $4,592  67 

The  deposit  on  account  thereof,  per  covering  warrant  No.  26,  of 

March  31,  1864,  was.. $4,592  33 

Warrant  No.  1834,  of  December  31,  1881 34 

$4,592  67 


132 

The  quota  of  Oregon  under  said  Act  was $35,140  67 

The  deposit  on  account  thereof,  per  covering  warrant  No.  1835,  of 

December  31,  1881,  was $1,891  60 

Warrant  No.  2696,  of  March  31,  1883 33,249  07 

$35,140  67 

Said  accounts  with  Nevada  and  Oregon  now  stand  balanced  and  closed. 
No  deduction  of  percentage  has  been  allowed  to  any  of  these  three  States 
in  the  adjustment  of  said  accounts,  and  I  am  not  aware  of  any  expense 
incurred  by  the  United  States  in  collecting  the  several  sums  deposited  to 
the  credit  thereof  as  aforesaid. 

Very  respectfully, 

[Signed:]  WM.  LAWRENCE,  Comptroller. 

By  J.  Tarbell,  Deputy  Comptroller. 

"B." 

Treasury  Department,  February  11,  1884. 

Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  House  of  Representatives: 

Sir  :  In  response  to  your  letter  of  the  thirtieth  ultimo,  relative  to  pay- 
ment of  direct  tax  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  by  the  States  of  Cali- 
fornia, Oregon,  and  Nevada,  and  asking  whether  any  expenses  were  incurred 
therein  or  any  per  cent  allowed  therefor,  by  the  United  States,  I  have  the 
honor  to  inclose  herewith  an  official  report  from  the  office  of  the  First 
Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  covering  the  points  of  your  inquiry. 
Very  respectfully, 

[Signed:]  CHARLES  J.  FOLGER,  Secretary. 

"C." 

Treasury  Department,  First  Comptroller's  Office, 
Washington,  D.  C,  March  28, 1882. 

Hon.  Charles  J.  Folger,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury: 

Sir  :  By  your  reference  to  this  office  of  the  twenty-third  instant,  I  have 
the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  a  letter  addressed  to  you  under 
date  of  the  twenty-first  instant,  by  Robert  J.  Stevens,  Clerk  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  which  he 
states  that  by  direction  of  the  committee  he  incloses  to  you  a  paper  sub- 
mitted to  them,  being  the  form  of  a  clause  proposed  to  be  embraced  in  the 
Sundry  Civil  Bill,  to  enable  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  to  the 
State  of  Kansas  fifteen  per  centum  of  the  amount  of  her  quota  of  the 
direct  tax  provided  for  by  the  Act  of  August  5, 1861,  as  an  equitable  settle- 
ment of  the  cost  for  assuming  the  collection  of  the  same. 

He  further  states  that  the  committee  requests  that  you  will  have  the 
application  examined  and  returned  to  the  committee,  with  full  information 
and  your  recommendation  thereupon. 

Your  reference  to  this  office  is  for  report. 

All  the  facts  necessary  to  a  complete  understanding  of  this  subject  will 
be  found  in  the  appendix  to  my  annual  report. 

The  material  facts  may  be  thus  stated  : 

The  Act  of  Congress  of  August  5, 1861  (12  Stats.,  292,)  imposed  a  direct 
tax  of  $20,000,000  upon  the  United  States,  and  apportioned  the  same  to 
the  States,  respectively,  including  $71,743  33  to  the  State  of  Kansas. 


133 

The  fifty-third  section  of  the  Act  provides  that  any  State  may  lawfully 
assume,  assess,  collect,  and  pay  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  the 
direct  tax,  or  its  quota  thereof,  in  its  own  way  and  manner. 

And  it  is  provided  (12  Stats.  311),  that  any  State  which  shall  give  notice, 
by  the  Governor,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  on  or  before  the  second 
Tuesday  in  February,  1862,  and  in  each  succeeding  year  thereafter,  of  its 
intention  to  assume  and  pay  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  the 
direct  tax  imposed  by  this  Act,  shall  be  entitled  to  a  deduction  of  fifteen 
per  cent  on  the  quota  of  direct  tax  apportioned  to  such  State,  levied  and 
collected  by  such  State,  through  its  officers;  provided,  that  the  deduction 
shall  only  be  made  to  apply  to  such  part  of  the  sum  as  shall  have  been 
actually  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  on  or  before  the  last 
day  of  June  in  the  year  to  which  such  payment  relates,  and  the  Act  for 
collecting  the  tax,  through  officers  of  the  United  States,  in  case  the  same 
should  not  be  paid  by  any  State. 

Under  this  Act,  on  the  twenty-ninth  of  May,  1868,  the  then  First  Comp- 
troller audited  and  certified  that  $71,743  33  are  due  and  payable  from  the 
State  of  Kansas  to  the  United  States. 

The  State  was  accordingly  charged  in  the  Kegister's  office  with  this  sum. 

In  pursuance  of  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  to  indemnify  the  States  for 
expenses  incurred  by  them  in  defense  of  the  United  States  (12  Stats.  276), 
the  State  of  Kansas  filed  claim  in  the  Treasury  Department  in  April,  1862, 
on  which  there  was  allowed,  September  20,  1867,  $9,360  82,  which  was 
placed  to  the  credit  of  the  State  on  account  of  the  direct  tax  charged  to  it 
as  aforesaid. 

On  the  twenty-second  of  June,  1881,  $26,604  05  were  credited  to  the 
State  of  Kansas  for  expenses  incurred  by  that  State  under  the  Act  of  July 
27,1861. 

The  Deficiency  Appropriation  Act  of  March  3,  1881,  appropriated  for  the 
State  of  Kansas,  for  amount  due  of  the  five,  three,  and  two  per  cent  funds 
to  States,  from  the  proceeds  of  sales  of  lands,  $190,268  27. 

Of  this  sum  there  was  credited  to  the  State  of  Kansas,  on  the  charge 
against  it  for  direct  taxes,  about  June  23, 1881,  $35,778  46,  and  the  residue 
of  the  sum  appropriated  by  the  Act  of  March  3,  1881,  was  paid  to  the 
State  of  Kansas. 

The  direct  tax,  thus  charged  to  the  State  of  Kansas,  was  paid  by  the 
three  sums  named,  to  wit,  $9,360  82,  $26,604  05,  for  expenses  incurred  by 
the  State  in  the  defense  of  the  United  States  under  the  Act  of  July  27, 
1861,  and  $35,778  46  out  of  the  sum  appropriated  by  the  Act  of  March  3, 
1881. 

The  purpose  of  the  clause  proposed  to  be  embraced  in  the  Sundry  Civil 
Bill  is  to  allow  to  the  State  of  Kansas  fifteen  per  cent  on  these  three  sums, 
making  $10,761  49.9,  or,  as  stated  in  the  bill,  $10,761  50. 

From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  as  the  law  now  stands  the  State  of  Kansas 
has  no  legal  claim  to  this  payment. 

The  only  question,  I  suppose,  therefore  to  be  determined,  is  whether  the 
State  has  a  claim  founded  upon  principles  of  substantial  equity  and  jus- 
tice which  ought  to  be  allowed  by  Congress. 

I  learned  informally  that  you  desire  an  expression  of  my  opinion  upon 
this  question.  In  favor  of  the  payment  of  this  sum  to  the  State  of  Kansas, 
it  may,  with  great  propriety  and  force  be  argued  that  the  United  States 
has  not  been  put  to  the  expense  of  collecting  the  tax  from  the  citizens  or 
property  in  the  State  of  Kansas,  and  that  the  amount  has  been  paid  with- 
out this  expense  to  the  United  States,  and  that  therefore  the  State  should 
be  reimbursed  to  this  extent. 


134 

On  the  other  hand  it  may  be  urged  that  other  States  paid  years  since, 
whereas  the  State  of  Kansas  has  delayed  its  payment. 

It  may  properly  be  said,  however,  I  think,  that  if  the  General  Govern- 
ment chose  to  omit  collecting  the  tax  from  the  citizens  or  property  in  the 
State  of  Kansas  it  is  no  fault  of  that  State,  or  its  citizens,  and  that  no  com- 
plaint can  properly  be  made  on  that  score  by  the  General  Government. 

It  is  to  be  presumed  that  if  the  United  States  had  taken  the  necessary 
steps  at  an  earlier  date  to  collect  this  tax,  it  would  have  been  collected, 
and  if  the  officers  of  the  General  Government  did  not  deem  it  expedient  to 
press  an  earlier  payment,  the  State  should  not  be  charged  with  any  failure 
or  delinquency  on  that  account. 

It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  this  claim  by  the  State  of  Kansas  for 
reimbursement  to  the  extent  of  $10,761  50  is  supported  by  strong  con- 
siderations of  equity  and  justice. 

It  is  proper  to  say  that  if  Congress  should  make  this  appropriation,  a 
similar  appropriation  will  doubtless  be  asked  in  behalf  of  other  States. 

On  the  twenty-fifth  instant  I  requested  the  Register  of  the  Treasury  to 
give  me  information  as-  to  the  sums  which  had  been  covered  into  the 
Treasury  on  account  of  the  direct  tax,  to  the  credit  of  the  several  States, 
where  the  tax  of  fifteen  per  cent  was  not  allowed  under  the  Act  of  August 
5,  1861,  and,  under  date  of  the  twenty-seventh,  I  received  from  him  a  letter 
on  this  subject,  which  is  herein  inclosed. 

This  shows  that  the  several  States  and  Territories  have  been  credited  to 
the  amount  of  $5,463,588  57,  without  an  allowance  of  fifteen  per  cent.  I 
learn,  informally,  that  the  records  in  the  Register's  office  do  not  now  show 
how  much  of  this  gross  sum  arises  from  expenses  incurred  by  the  States 
in  defense  of  the  United  States,  under  the  Act  of  Congress  of  July  27, 
1861  (12  Stats.,  276),  nor  how  much  of  it  comes  from  other  sources. 

It  seems  to  me  proper,  however,  that  attention  should  be  called  to  the 
fact  that  claim  will  doubtless  be  made  by  other  States,  if  this  appropri- 
ation should  be  made  in  favor  of  the  State  of  Kansas. 

I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  herewith  the  letter  of  Mr.  Stevens,  with  its 
inclosure,  and  the  letter  to  me  by  the  Assistant  Register,  of  the  twenty- 
seventh  instant.  Also  my  annual  report,  the  appendix  to  which  gives 
more  at  large  the  facts  necessary  to  a  proper  understanding  of  this  subject. 

Very  respectfully, 

[Signed:]  WM.  LAWRENCE,  Comptroller. 


EXHIBIT  No.  7. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  May  9,  1884 — Mr.  Farley  intro- 
duced the  following  bill,  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Claims: 

A  BILL 

For  the  relief  of  the  State  of  California. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  to  enable  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  to  pay  to  the  State  of  California  fifteen  per  centum  of  the 
amount  of  her  quota  of  the  direct  tax  of  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one. 


135 

for  assuming  the  cost  of  the  collection  of  the  same,  and  as  paid  by  her 
without  any  expense  to  the  United  States,  the  sum  of  thirty-seven  thou- 
sand one  hundred  and  ninety-one  dollars  and  seventeen  cents  is  hereby 
appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 


EXHIBIT  No.  1%, 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    Senate.    Report  No.  550. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.    May  14, 1884 — Ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Dolph,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bills  S.  511,  655,  and  2191.] 

Your  committee,  to  which  were  referred  the  bills  S.  511,  for  the  relief  of 
the  State  of  Oregon;  S.  655,  for  the  relief  of  the  State  of  Nevada;  and  S. 
2191,  for  the  relief  of  the  State  of  California,  respectfully  reports: 

Th-at  it  is  proposed  by  said  bills  to  authorize  and  direct  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  to  pay  to  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada  the 
following  amounts,  namely:  Oregon,  $5,271  10;  Nevada,  $688  90;  Califor- 
nia, $37,191  11;  being  fifteen  per  cent  of  the  amounts  apportioned  to  the 
said  States,  respectively,  of  the  direct  tax  of  $20,000,000  imposed  by  Act  of 
Congress  of  August  5,  1861,  upon  the  United  States. 

That  the  amounts  of  said  direct  tax  apportioned  to  said  States  of  Califor- 
nia, Oregon,  and  Nevada  were  as  follows:  California,  $247,941  13;  Oregon, 
$35,140  67;  Nevada,  $4,592  67. 

It  was  provided  by  the  fifty-third  section  of  said  Act,  that  any  State 
might  lawfully  assume,  collect,  assess,  and  pay  into  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States  the  direct  tax,  o-r  its  quota  thereof,  in  its  own  way  and  man- 
ner, and  that  any  State  which  should  give  notice  by  its  Governor  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  or  before  the  second  Tuesday  of  February, 
1862,  and  in  each  succeeding  year  thereafter,  of  its  intention  to  assume  and 
pay  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  the  direct  tax  imposed  by  said 
Act,  should  be  entitled  to  a  deduction  of  fifteen  per  cent  upon  such  portion 
of  the  tax  as  should  be  paid  on  or  before  the  last  day  of  June  in  the  year 
to  which  such  tax  payment  related. 

The  States  of  California  and  Oregon,  and  the  Territory  of  Nevada,  at  the 
first  session  of  their  respective  Legislative  Assemblies  after  the  imposition 
of  said  tax,  assumed  and  made  provision  for  the  collection  of  the  same. 

The  State  of  California,  by  the  first  section  of  an  Act  of  the  Legislative 
Assembly  of  that  State,  approved  April  12,  1862,  provided  for  an  annual 
tax  of  fifteen  cents  upon  each  $100  in  value  of  all  the  property  in  the  State 
liable  to  taxation,  for  the  purpose  of  paying  the  quota  of  said  direct  tax 
apportioned  to  that  State;  and  by  the  tenth  section  of  said  Act  directed 
the  Treasurer  of  the  State  to  pay  over  to  the  Assistant  Treasurer  of  the 
United  States,  at  the  City  of  San  Francisco,  on  the  first  Monday  in  each 
month,  all  moneys  in  the  State  Treasury  belonging  to  the  Federal  Tax 
Fund,  not  exceeding  in  each  fiscal  year  the  quota  of  the  direct  tax  allotted 
to  the  State  by  Act  of  Congress  after  retaining  therefrom  the  deduction 
allowed  by  the  said  Act  of  Congress  to  the  State,  in  lieu  of  compensation, 
pay,  per  diem,  and  percentage.  By  the  first  section  of  an  Act  passed  b}^ 
the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Oregon,  approved  October  20, 1862, 


136 

the  sum  of  $35,140  66f  was  appropriated  for  the  payment  to  the  United 
States  of  the  amount  of  said  direct  tax  apportioned  to  that  State,  and  by 
Section  2  of  said  Act  the  State  Treasurer  was  authorized,  whenever  the 
proper  officer  of  the  Treasury  Department  of  the  United  States  should 
draw  upon  the  State  therefor,  to  pay  the  sum  of  $10,000,  and  to  pay  the 
further  sum  of  $25,140  66f  upon  hke  draft  at  any  time  after  the  first  of 
March,  1863. 

The  Territory  of  Nevada,  by  an  Act  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  said 
Territory,  approved  November  29,  1861,  provided  for  the  levying  and  col- 
lecting of  a  special  tax  of  one  mill  on  each  dollar  of  the  taxable  property 
in  the  Territory  for  the  purpose  of  paying  the  quota  of  said  direct  tax 
apportioned  to  said  Territory,  and  by  Section  3  of  said  Act  made  it  the 
duty  of  the  Territorial  Treasurer,  upon  demand  of  the  proper  officer,  to  pay 
over  to  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States  the  amount  due  from  the  Ter- 
ritory under  the  said  Act  of  Congress. 

Your  committee  is  not  informed  why  the  quota  of  said  States  and  Terri- 
tory was  not  collected  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  said  Acts.  The 
full  amount  of  said  tax  has  been  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States,  and  without  cost  to  the  United  States,  but  the  same  was  paid  after 
the  time  specified  in  said  Act  of  Congress,  within  which  the  payment  would 
have  entitled  them  to  the  deduction  of  fifteen  per  cent. 

It  is  conceded  that  said  States  have  no  legal  claim  to  the  deduction  asked 
for,  but  it  is  contended  that  as  the  United  States  has  not  been  put  to  the 
expense  of  collecting  said  tax,  said  States  should  be  reimbursed  to  the 
extent  proposed  by  the  bills  under  consideration.-  Congress  has  adopted 
this  view  of  the  question  and  has  refunded  to  the  State  of  Kansas  fifteen 
per  cent  of  the  amount  of  such  direct  tax  paid  by  her  under  similar  cir- 
cumstances. Such  repayment  was  authorized  by  the  following  clause  of 
the  Deficiency  Appropriation  Bill  of  August  5,  1882: 

To  enable  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Kansas  fifteen  per  cent 
of  the  amount  of  her  quota  of  the  direct  tax  or  1861  on  account  of  proper  costs  for  assum- 
ing the  collection  of  the  same,  $10,761  50. 

Your  committee  submits  herewith  a  letter  from  the  honorable  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  together  with  the  report  of  the  First  Comptroller  of  the 
Treasury  of  March  28,  1882,  and  the  copy  of  the  report  of  the  Register  of 
the  Treasury,  referred  to  therein,  all  relating  to  the  payment  to  the  State 
of  Kansas  of  the  fifteen  per  cent  of  her  quota  of  said  direct  tax. 

Your  committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  claims  of  the  States  of  Cali- 
fornia, Oregon,  and  Nevada,  for  the .  repayment  of  fifteen  per  cent  of  the 
direct  tax  paid  by  them,  are  as  meritorious  as  was  the  claim  of  the  State 
of  Kansas,  and  that  the  equitable  .principle  of  equality  requires  the  like 
consideration  of  the  claims  of  said  States  by  Congress.  Your  committee 
therefore  reports  the  accompanying  amendment  to  the  Deficiency  Appro- 
priation Bill  as  a  substitute  for  said  bills:  Senate  511.  Senate  655,  and 
Senate  2191. 

Treasury  Department,  April  19,  1884. 

Sir:  Referring  to  -your  communication  of  the  fifteenth  instant,  request- 
ing information  in  relation  to  the  payment  to  the  State  of  Kansas  of  fifteen 
per  centum  of  her  quota  of  the  direct  tax  of  1861,  I  have  the  honor  to 
inclose  herewith  copy  of  the  report  of  the  First  Comptroller  of  March  28, 
1882,  upon  the  subject,  which  was  forwarded  to  the  Chairman  of  the  House 
Committee  on  Appropriations,  March  31,  1882. 

I  would  also  invite  your  attention,  in  this  connection,  to  the  inclosed 


137 

copy  of  letter  of  the  Register  of  the  Treasury  of  the  eighteenth  instant, 
giving  the  aggregate  amounts  that  have  been  covered  into  the  Treasury  on 
account  of  direct  tax  to  the  credit  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  and 
the  District  of  Columbia,  where  a  deduction  of  fifteen  per  centum  was  not 
allowed  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861. 
Very  respectfully, 

CHARLES  J.  FOLGER,  Secretary. 

Hon.  J.  N.  Dolph,  United  States  Senate. 

Treasury  Department,  First  Comptroller's  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  March  28,  1882.  J 

Sir  :  By  your  reference  to  this  office  of  the  twenty-third  instant,  I  have 
the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  a  letter  addressed  to  you  under 
date  of  the  twenty-first  instant  by  Robert  J.  Stevens,  clerk  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  which  he 
states  that  by  direction  of  the  committee  he  incloses  to  you  a  paper  sub- 
mitted to  them,  being  the  form  of  a  clause  proposed  to  be  embraced  in  the 
Sundry  Civil  Bill— 

To  enable  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Kansas  fifteen  per  centum 
of  the  amount  of  her  quota  of  the  direct  tax  provided  for  by  the  Act  of  August  5, 1861,  as 
an  equitable  settlement  of  the  cost  for  assuming  the  collection  of  the  same. 

.  He  further  states  that  the  committee  requests  that  you  will  have  the 
application  examined  and  returned  to  the  committee,  with  full  information 
and  your  recommendation  thereupon.  Your  reference  to  this  office  is  for 
report. 

All  of  the  facts  necessary  to  a  complete  understanding  of  this  subject 
will  be  found  in  the  appendix  to  my  annual  report.  The  material  facts 
may  be  thus  stated:  The  Act  of  Congress  of  August  5,  1861  (12  Stats., 
292) ,  imposed  a  direct  tax  of  $20,000,000  upon  the  United  States,  and  ap- 
portioned the  same  to  the  States  respectively,  including  $71,743  33  to  the 
State  of  Kansas.  The  fifty-third  section  of  the  Act  provides  that  any 
State  may  lawfully  assume,  assess,  collect,  and  pay  into  the  Treasury  of 
the  United  States  the  direct  tax,  or  its  quota  thereof,  in  its  own  way  and 
manner.  And  it  is  provided  (12  Stats.,  311)  that  any  State  which  shall 
give  notice  by  the  Governor  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  on  or  before 
the  second  Tuesday  of  February,  1862,  and  in  each  succeeding  year  there- 
after, of  its  intention  to  assume  and  pay  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States  the  direct  tax  imposed  by  this  Act,  shall  be  entitled  to  a  deduction 
of  fifteen  per  cent  on  the  quota  of  direct  tax  apportioned  to  such  State, 
levied  and  collected  by  such  State  through  its  officers,  provided  that  the 
deduction  shall  only  be  made  to  apply  to  such  part  of  the  sum  as  shall 
have  been  actually  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  on  or  before 
the  last  day  of  June  in  the  year  to  which  such  payment  relates;  and  the 
Act  provided  for  collecting  the  tax  through  officers  of  the  United  States, 
in  case  the  same  should  not  be  paid  by  any  State.  Under  this  Act,  on  the 
twenty-ninth  of  May,  1868,  the  then  First  Comptroller  admitted  and  cer- 
tified that  $71,743  33  are  due  and  payable  from  the  State  of  Kansas  to  the 
United  States.  The  State  was  accordingly  charged  in  the  Register's  office 
with  this  sum.  In  pursuance  of  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  to  indemnify 
the  States  for  expenses  incurred  by  them  in  defense  of  the  United  States 
(12  Stats.,  276),  the  State  of  Kansas  filed  claims  in  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment in  April,  1862,  on  which  there  was  allowed  September  20,  1867, 
$9,360  82,  which  was  placed  to  the  credit  of  the  State  on  account  of  the 


138 

direct  tax  charged  to  it  as  aforesaid.  On  the  twenty-second  of  June,  1881, 
$26,604  05  were  credited  to  the  State  of  Kansas  for  expenses  incurred  by 
that  State  under  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861.  The  Deficiency  Appropriation 
Act  of  March  3,  1881,  appropriated  for  the  State  of  Kansas  for  amount  due 
of  the  five,  three,  and  two  per  cent  funds  to  States  from  the  proceeds  of 
sales  of  lands,  $190,268  27.  Of  this  sum  there  was  credited  to  the  State 
of  Kansas,  on  the  charge  against  it  for  direct  taxes,  about  June  23,  1881, 
$35,778  46,  and  the  residue  of  the  sum  appropriated  by  the  Act  of  March 
3,  1881,  was  paid  to  the  State  of  Kansas.  The  direct  tax  thus  charged  to 
the  State  of  Kansas  was  paid  by  the  three  sums  named,  to  wit,  $9,360  82 
and  $26,604  05  for  expenses  incurred  by  the  State  in  defense  of  the  United 
States,  under  the  Act  of  July  27, 1861,  and  $35,778  46  out  of  the  sum  appro- 
priated by  the  Act  of  March  3,  1881. 

The  purpose  of  the  clause  proposed  to  be  embraced  in  the  Sundry  Civil 
Bill  is  to  allow  to  the  State  of  Kansas  fifteen  per  cent  on  these  three  sums, 
making  $10,761  42^,  or,  as  stated  in  the  bill,  $10,761  50.  From  this  it 
will  be  seen  that  as  the  law  now  stands  the  State  of  Kansas  has  no  legal 
claim  to  this  payment.  The  only  question,  I  suppose,  therefore  to  be  deter- 
mined is,  whether  the  State  has  a  claim  founded  upon  principles  of  substan- 
tial equity  and  justice  which  ought  to  be  allowed  by  Congress.  I  learned 
informally  that  you  desired  an  expression  of  my  opinion  upon  this  question. 

In  favor  of  the  payment  of  this  sum  to  the  State  of  Kansas,  it  may  with 
great  propriety  and  force  be  urged  that  the  United  States  has  not  been  put 
to  the  expense  of  collecting  the  tax  from  the  citizens  or  property  in  the  State 
of  Kansas,  and  tl^at  the  amount  has  been  paid  without  this  expense  to  the 
United  States,  and  that,  therefore,  the  State  should  be  reimbursed  to  this 
extent.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  urged  that  other  States  paid  years 
since,  whereas  the  State  of  Kansas  has  delayed  its  payment.  It  may  prop- 
erly be  said,  however,  I  think,  that  if  the  General  Government  chose  to 
omit  collecting  the  tax  from  the  citizens  or  property  in  the  State  of  Kansas, 
it  is  no  fault  of  the  State  or  its  citizens,  and  that  no  complaints  can  properly 
be  made  on  that  score  by  the  General  Government.  It  is  to  be  presumed 
that  if  the  United  States  had  taken  the  necessary  steps  at  an  earlier  date 
to  collect  this  tax,  it  would  have  been  collected;  and  if  the  ofiicers  of  the 
General  Government  did  not  deem  it  expedient  to  press  an  earlier  payment, 
the  State  should  not  be  charged  with  any  failure  or  delinquency  on  that 
account. 

It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  this  claim  by  the  State  of  Kansas  for  reim- 
bursement to  the  extent  of  $10,761  50  is  supported  by  strong  considerations 
of  equity  and  justice.  It  is  proper  to  say,  that  if  Congress  shall  make  this 
appropriation  a  similar  appropriation  will  doubtless  be  asked  in  behalf  of 
other  States. 

On  the  twenty-fifth  instant  I  requested  the  Register  of  the  Treasury  to 
give  me  information  as  to  the  sums  which  had  been  covered  into  the  Treas- 
ury on  account  of  the  direct  tax  to  the  credit  of  the  several  States  where 
the  tax  of  fifteen  per  cent  was  not  allowed  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861, 
and  under  date  of  the  twenty-seventh  1  received  from  him  a  letter  on  the 
subject,  which  is  herein  inclosed.  This  shows  that  the  several  States  and 
Territories  have  been  credited  to  the  amount  of  $5,483,588  57,  without  an 
allowance  of  fifteen  per  cent.  I  learn,  informally,  that  the  records  in  the 
Register's  office  do  not  show  how  much  of  this  gross  sum  arises  from 
expenses  incurred  by  the  States  in  defense  of  the  United  States  under  the 
Act  of  Congress  of  July  27, 1861  (12  Stats.,  276),  nor  how  much  of  it  comes 
from  other  sources.     It  seems  to  me  proper,  however,  that  attention  should 


139 

be  called  to  the  fact  that  claims  will  doubtless  be  made  by  other  States,  if 
this  appropriation  should  be  made  in  favor  of  the  State  of  Kansas. 

I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  herewith  the  letter  of  Mr.  Stevens  with  its 
inclosure  and  the  letter  addressed  to  me  by  the  Assistant  Register,  of  the 
twenty-seventh  instant;  also  my  annual  report,  the  appendix  to  which 
gives  more  at  large  the  facts  necessary  to  a  proper  understanding  of  this 
subject. 

Very  respectfully, 

WM.  LAWRENCE,  Comptroller. 

Hon.  Charles  J.  Folger,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Treasury  Department,  Register's  Office, 

April  18,  1884. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  as  the  aggregate  amounts 
that  have  been  covered  into  the  Treasury  on  acc^ount  of  direct  tax  to  the 
credit  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia, 
where  a  deduction  of  fifteen  per  centum  was  not  allowed  under  Act  of 
August  5,  1861  (12  Stat.,  Sec.  53),  as  appears  from  the  books  of  this  office: 

Alabama. .$8,491  46 

Arkansas 184,082  18 

California 247,941  13 

Colorado 1,516  89 

Delaware* 1 70,332  83 

District  of  Columbia 49,437  33 

Florida 43,529  81 

Georgia 71,407  75 

Kansas  . 71,743  33 

Louisiana _  268,515  12 

Mississippi 74,742  57 

Nebraska 19,312  00 

Nevada 4,592  67 

New  Mexico 62,648  00 

North  Carolina . 386,194  45 

Oregon 35,140  67 

South  Carolina 1 377,961  30 

Tennessee 387,722  06 

Texas 130,008  06 

Virginia 515,569  72 

Washington 4,268  16 

Wisconsin 166,887  13 

Total $3,182,044  62 

Very  respectfully,  etc., 

W.  P.  TITCOMB,  Acting  Register. 
Hon.  Chas.  J.  Folger,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

*  Additional  amount  allowed  State  on  compromise,  |4,350  50. 


EXHIBIT  No.  7>^. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  6772.    Printer's  No.,  7800. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     April  28,  1884 — Read  twice,  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Glascock  introduced  the  following  bill: 


140 

A  BILL 

To  authorize  an  allowance  to  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada 
of  fifteen  per  centum  of  the  direct  tax  levied  under  the  Act  of  August 
fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one. 

Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  to  enable  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  to  pay  to  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada, 
respectively,  fifteen  per  centum  of  their  respective  quotas  of  the  direct  tax 
of  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  on  account  of  their  proper 
costs  for  assuming  the  collection  of  the  same,  there  is  hereby  appropriated, 
out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  the  sums 
following,  to  wit:  The  sum  of  thirty-seven  thousand  one  hundred  and 
ninety-one  dollars  and  sixteen  cents,  to  be  paid  to  the  State  of  California; 
the  sum  of  five  thousand  two  hundred  and  seventy-one  dollars  and  ten 
cents,  to  be  paid  to  the  State  of  Oregon;  and  the  sum  of  six  hundred  and 
eighty-eight  dollars  and  ninety  cents,  to  be  paid  to  the  State  of  Nevada. 


EXHIBIT  No.  8. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  Report  No.  550. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  May  14,  1884 — Referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Appropriations  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

AMENDMENT 

Reported  by  Mr.  Dolph,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  and  intended  to 

be  proposed  to  the  bill  (H.  R.  )  to  provide  for  deficiencies  in  the 

appropriations  for  the  service  of  the  Government  for  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-four,  and  for  other  purposes, 
viz.:  Insert  the  following: 

To  enable  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  to  the  States  of  Califor- 
nia, Oregon,  and  Nevada,  respectively,  the  fifteen  per  centum  of  the  amount 
of  their  quota  of  the  direct  tax  of  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  on 
account  of  the  proper  costs  for  assuming  the  collection  of  the  same,  as 
follows,  to  wit:  To  the  State  of  California,  thirty-seven  thousand  one  hun- 
dred and  ninety-one  dollars  and  seventeen  cents;  to  the  State  of  Oregon, 
five  thousand  two  hundred  and  seventy-one  dollars  and  ten  cents;  and  to 
the  State  of  Nevada,  six  hundred  and  eighty-eight  dollars  and  ninety 
cents. 


EXHIBIT  No.  9. 

Treasury  Department,  Fifth  Auditor's  Office,  [ 
Washington,  June  18,  1886.      ) 

John  Mullan,  Esq.,  State  Agent,  etc.,  Washington,  D.  C: 

Sir:  The  inclosed  copies  of  accounts  with  the  State  of  California  for 
direct  tax  have  been  sent  to  this  office  for  transmittal  by  the  Hon.  Register 


141 

of  the  Treasury,  to  which  officer  your  letter  of  the  seventeenth  instant 
shoulci  have  been  addressed. 

ANTH.  EICKHOFF, 
Auditor. 

Form  13.    No.  43,395.    Recorded  July  23,  1884.    M.  J.  L. 

Treasury  Department,  Fifth  Auditor's  Office, 

July  23,  1884. 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  examined  and  adjusted  an  account  between 
the  United  States  and  the  State  of  California  on  account  of  Direct  Tax  Act, 
August  5,  1861,  for ,  188-,  and  find  that  said  State  is  chargeable,  viz.: 

To  balance  due  from  said  State,  per  Report  No.  39,283 $6,597  54 

To  warrants  on  the  Treasury,  viz.: 

To  amount  allowed  under  Act  July  7, 1884 31,583  26 

$38,180  80 

I  also  find  that  said  State  is  entitled  to  credit: 

By  amount  of  fifteen  per  cent  of  quota  ($254,538  67) $38,180  80 

$38,180  80 

As  appears  from  the  statement  and  vouchers  herewith  transmitted  for  the 
decision  of  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  thereon. 

J.  B.  MANN, 

Acting  Fifth  Auditor. 
To  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury. 

$31,583  26.  Comptroller's  Office,  August  22,  1884. 

I  admit  and  certify  the  above  balance  of  thirty-one  thousand  five  hun- 
dred eighty-three  dollars  and  twenty-six  cents  is  due  and  payable  to  the 
Governor  of  the  State  of  California,  at  San  Francisco,  California,  out  of  the 
appropriation  to  supply  deficiencies  for  the  fiscal  year  1884,  and  for  prior 
years  of  July  7,  1884;  draft  to  the  care  of  Capt.  John  Mullan,  State  Agent, 
present;  the  State  to  be  charged. 

WM.  LAWRENCE, 

Comptroller. 

By  Z.  M.  LAWRENCE, 
Acting  Deputy  Comptroller,  S.  C.  C. 
To  the  Register  of  the  Treasury. 

Treasury  Department,  Register's  Office,  ) 

June  18,  1886.        J 
A  true  copy. 

.      ROS.  A.  FISH, 

Assistant  Register,  P. 


142 


EXHIBIT  No.  10. 

Treasury  Department,  Kegister's  Office,  | 

July  14,  1886.         j 

John  Mullan,  Esq.^  State  Agent  for  California,  etc.: 

Sir:  Referring  to  yours  of  twenty-third  ultimo,  I  transmit  herewith  a 
certified  transcript  of  reports  relating  to  direct  tax  between  the  State  of 
California  and  the  United  States,  under  Act  of  August  5, 1861,  as  requested 
therein. 

Very- respectfully, 

ROS.  A.  FISH, 
Assistant  Register,  A.  H. , 

Office  of  the  Register  of  the  Treasury,  Form  A,  Transcript  Certificate. 

Treasury  Department,  Register's  Office, 
Washington,  D.  C,  July  12,  1886. 

Pursuant  to  Section  886  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States, 
I,  W.  S.  Rosecrans,  Register  of  the  Treasury  Department,  do  hereby  certify 
that  the  annexed  is  a  transcript  from  the  books  and  proceedings  of  the 
Treasury  Department,  and  true  copies  of  the  originals  on  file  in  the  case  of 
State  of  California  on  account  of  direct  tax;  Act  August  5,  1861. 

W.  S.  ROSECRANS, 

Register,  A.  H. 

Be  it  remembered,  that  William  S.  Rosecrans,  Esq.,  who  certified  the 
annexed  transcript,  is  now,  and  was  at  the  time  of  doing  so.  Register  of 
the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  and  that  full  faith  and  credit  are  due 
to  his  official  attestations. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I,  Charles  S.  Fairchild,  Acting  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States,  have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name,  and 
caused  to  be  affixed  the  seal  of  this  department,  at  the  City  of  Washington, 
this  thirteenth  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1886. 

[seal.]  C.  S.  fairchild, 

Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


No.  55,633. 


Treasury  Department,  Fifth  Auditor's  Office,  \ 

May  15,  1868.  j 


I  hereby  certify,  that  I  have  examined  and  adjusted  an  account  between 
the  United  States  and  the  State  of  California,  and  find  that  the  sum  of 
two  hundred  and  fifty-four  thousand  five  hundred  and  thirty-eight  two 
thirds  dollars  is  due  from  said  State  to  the  United  States,  as  follows,  viz.: 

For  amount  of  direct  tax,  imposed  and  apportioned  by  the  provisions  of 
the  eighth  section  of  an  Act  to  provide  increased  revenue  from  imports, 
to  pay  interest  on  the  public  debt,  and  for  other  purposes,  approved  August 
5,  1861. 

Amount  to  be  debited  to  the  State  of  California  on  the  books  of  the 
Register  of  the  Treasury,  as  appears  from  statement  and  vouchers,  herewith 


143 

transmitted  for  the  decision  of  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  thereon, 
$254,538  67. 

C.  M.  WALKER, 

Auditor. 
To  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury. 


$254,5383%. 


Treasury  Department,  Comptroller's  Office,  ) 

May  29,  1868.        '  J 


I  admit  and  certify  that  two  hundred  fifty-four  thousand  five  hundred 
thirty-eight  and  -^-^  dollars  are  due  and  payable,  as  stated  in  the  above 
report. 

R.  W.  TAYLOR, 

Comptroller. 
To  the  Register  of  the  Treasury. 

No.  10,813. 

Treasury  Department,  Fifth  Auditor's  Office, 

March  17,  1874. 

I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  examined  and  adjusted  an  account  between 
the  United  States  and  State  of  California,  for  direct  tax  imposed  under 

Act  approved  August  5,  1861,  for  the  month  ending ,  187 — ,  and  find 

said  State  chargeable  therein,  as  follows,  viz. : 

To  amount  due  from  said  State,  per  Register's  Certificate,  Report 
No.  55,633- ...$254,538  67 

I  also  find  said  State  entitled  to  credit  as  follows: 

By  amount  deposited  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  per  cover- 
ing *Warrant  No.  5,  4  Qr.,  1862. ... $63,839  31 

By  amount  deposited  to  the  credit  of  the  (Jnited  States,  per  cover- 
ing Warrant  No.  2,  1  Qr.,  1863 18.3,606  10 

247,445  41 


By  balance  due  from  said  State $7,093  26 

As  appears  from  the  statement  and  vouchers  herewith  transmitted  for 
the  decision  of  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  thereon. 

J.  H.  ELA, 
Auditor. 
To  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury. 


*  Deposited  after  September  30th. 

$7,093  26. 


Treasury  Department,  Comptroller's  Office, 

October  8,  1875. 


I  admit  and  certify  that  a  balance  of  seven  thousand  and  ninety-three  and 
3^  dollars  is  due  to  the  United  States,  as  stated  in  the  foregoing  report. 

WILLIAM  HEMPHILL  JONES, 

To  the  Register  of  the  Treasury.  Acting  Comptroller. 


144 
EXHIBIT  No.  11. 

Form  13.    No,  39,283.    Recorded  February  8,  1884. 

Treasury  Department,  Fifth  Auditor's  Office, 


February  7,  1884. 


I  hereby  certify  that  I  have  examined  and  adjusted  an  account  between 
the  United  States  and  the  State  of  California,  on  account  of  direct  tax,  Act 
August  5,  1861,  and  find  that  said  State  is  chargeable,  viz.: 

To  balance  due  from  said  State,  per  Report  No.  10,813 $7,093  26 

I  also  find  that  said  State  is  entitled  to  credit: 

By  warrant  in  favor  of  the  Treasurer,  viz.: 

No.  2,566,  dated  June  30,  1883 $495  72 

Balance  due  the  United  States. 6,597  54 

$7,093  26 

As  appears  from  the  statement  and  vouchers  herewith  transmitted  for  the 
decision  of  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  thereon. 

D.  S.  ALEXANDER, 
Fifth  Auditor,  E.  K. 
To  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury. 

$6,597  54.  Comptroller's  Office,  February  8,  1884. 

I  admit  and  certify  that  a  balance  of  six  thousand  five  hundred  ninety- 
seven  dollars  and  fifty-four  cents  is  due  to  the  United  States  as  stated  in  the 
foregoing  report. 

WM.  LAWRENCE, 

Comptroller. 

By  J.  TARBELL, 
Deputy  Comptroller,  S.  C.  C. 
To  the  Register  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  Register's  Office 


A  true  copy 


June  18,  1886. 


ROS.  A.  FISH, 

Assistant  Register,  P. 


EXHIBIT  No.  12. 

FEDERAL   CLAIMS. 

In  reference  to  the  several  claims  of  the  State  alleged  to  exist  against 
the  United  States,  I  beg  to  report  that  the  agent  for  this  State  at  Washing- 
ton, D.  C,  under  the  executive  authority  heretofore  conferred  upon  him 
and  duly  ratified  by  the  Legislature,  has  brought  to  the  official  attention 
of  the  proper  authorities  and  departments  of  the  United  States,  sundry 
claims  of  this  State.     While  the  reports  made  by  him  from  time  to  time 


145 

in  regard  thereto  show  considerable  and  favorable  progress,  still,  only  two 
of  such  claims  have  been  allowed  and  paid  by  the  United  States,  namely, 
that  of  $495  72  on  account  of  the  expenses  incurred  by  the  State  in  the 
year  1872  for  the  transportation  of  arms  to  the  northern  counties  during 
the  Modoc  Indian  war;  and  that  of  $38,180  80,  on  account  of  the  rebate 
of  the  fifteen  per  centum  of  the  direct  war  tax  levied  upon  and  assessed  to 
this  State  under  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  5,  1861  (U.  S. 
Statutes,  vol.  12,  p.  296). 

The  total  amount  of  the  Federal  direct  war  tax  levied  upon  the  State  of 
California,  under  the  aforesaid  Act  of  Congress,  was  $254,538  67.  This 
the  State  assumed  and  made  pro\asion  for  its  payment  in  the  Act  of  the 
Legislature  approved  April  12,  1862,  and  of  the  sum,  up  to  February,  1863, 
had  paid  $247,445  41.  This  left  the  amount,  still  due  from  the  State  to 
the  United  States,  $7,093  26. 

It  was  claimed  by  the  agent  of  this  State  that,  though  the  State  failed 
to  make  her  payment  of  this  direct  war  tax  within  the  time  prescribed  in 
said  Federal  statute,  and  though  she  was  in  consequence  not  legally 
entitled  to  the  rebate  of  fifteen  per  centum  thereof,  as  described  in  Section 
53  of  said  Act,  this  State,  nevertheless,  was  in  equity  entitled  to  said  fifteen 
per  centum  rebate,  since  the  collection  and  payment  had  been  made  with- 
out any  expense  whatever  to  the  United  States.  By  establishing  this  right 
in  equity  the  agent  succeeded  in  securing  and  collecting  the  rebate  in  the 
per  centum  mentioned. 

■  In  the  settlement  had  between  the  United  States  and  this  State,  arising 
under  the  two  claims  mentioned,  the  proper  United  States  authorities 
deducted  said  sum  of  $7,093  26  then  delinquent  and  due  the  United 
States,  and  thereafter  issued  in  the  name  of  the  Governor  of  California,  a 
draft  for  the  remainder,  viz.,  $31,583  26,  upon  the  United  States  Sub- 
Treasurer  at  San  Francisco.  This  amount,  after  deducting  the  commission 
for  collection  as  fixed  by  the  joint  resolution  of  the  Legislature  adopted 
March  3,  1883,  was  by  me  paid  over  to  the  State  Treasurer  in  the  sum  of 
$23,847  96. 

In  this  connection  I  beg  to  report  that  under  the  belief  that  a  proper 
effort,  made  by  a  competent  person,  to  collect  from  the  United  States  the  old 
California  Indian  war  debts  would  be  crowned  with  success,  I  have  duly 
appointed  Captain  John  Mullan,  the  present  agent,  as  agent  also  for  such 
purposes,  the  appointment  being  subject  to  ratification  by  the  Legislature. 
I  have  authorized  him  to  present  all  the  matters  connected  with  the  said 
war  debts,  including  the  interest  paid  by  and  due  to  this  State  on  account 
of  moneys  heretofore  expended  and  guaranteed  by  this  State  on  account  of 
Indian  and  other  hostilities  within  its  borders,  to  the  proper  United  States 
authorities  at  Washington,  with  a  view  to  the  favorable  recognition  and 
payment  of  such  claims.  Such  a  presentation  has  been  made  by  him, 
and  the  State  may  expect  through  his  efforts  an  eventually  favorable  action 
in  final  adjustment. 

The  intelligence  and  fidelity  displayed  by  Captain  Mullan  in  the  mat- 
ters described  fully  reflect  the  confidence  reposed  in  him  by  his  selection 
for  this  special  work,  and  I  therefore  recommend  that  the  Legislature  con- 
firm the  executive  appointment  of  Captain  Mullan  made  by  me  for  the 
purposes  above  described. 


10- 


146 


EXHIBIT  No.  13. 

Office  of  Treasurer  of  State,  | 

Sacramento,  November  1,  1862.  | 

Hon.  Gilbert  R.  Warren,  Controller  of  State,  Sacramento,  California  : 

Sir:  The  warrant  for  sixty-three  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty- 
nine  dollars  and  thirty-one  cents,  which  amount  was  to  be  paid  to  the 
United  States  Assistant  Treasurer  at  San  Francisco,  on  account  of  the 
Federal  or  National  tax — an  obligation  assumed  by  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia— was  duly  paid. 

But  as  said  Assistant  Treasurer,  under  his  construction  of  his  duties, 
refused  to  come  to  the  seat  of  the  State  Government,  either  to  receive  from 
the  Controller  the  warrant  for  said  amount,  or  payment  of  the  same,  it 
became  necessary  to  pay  the  same  at  San  Francisco,  and  that  on  or  before 
the  thirtieth  day  of  September,  A.  D.  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-two,  to 
secvire  the  State  the  deduction  of  ten  per  cent  allowed  by  Act  of  Congress, 
which  deduction  was  the  consideration  for  this  State  itself  making  the 
collection.  Consequently,  on  the  thirtieth  September,  ultimo,  I  paid  to  D. 
AV.  Cheesman,  United  States  Assistant  Treasurer  at  San  Francisco,  the  said 
amount  of  sixty-three  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-nine  dollars  and 
thirty-one  cents,  and  as  the  State  is  entitled  to  a  deduction  of  ten  per  cent, 
the  payment  was,  in  effect,  seventy  thousand  nine  hundred  and  thirty-two 
dollars  and  fifty-six  and  two  thirds  cents — nine  tenths  being  actually  paid 
and  one  tenth  being  the  State  percentage.  The  receipt  given  for  said  pay- 
ment is  only  for  the  amount  actually  paid,  as  said  Assistant  Treasurer 
said  the  reduction  allowed  must  be  settled  with  the  auditing  officers  at 
Washington. 

Said  Assistant  Treasurer,  on  the  thirtieth  of  September,  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-two,  after  counting  the  money  so  paid  and  giving  change  there- 
for (sixty-nine  cents),  declined  giving  his  receipt  for  the  same  until  he 
should  be  so  instructed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  United  States  Treasury, 
and  on  said  September  thirtieth  he  so  telegraphed  to  the  said  United  States 
Secretary,  and  on  seventh  October  received  reply  instructing  him  to  receive 
said  sum. 

In  addition  to  said  ten  per  cent  deduction,  I  have,  from  the  amount 
placed  in  my  hands,  saved  the  farther  sum  of  four  thousand  four  hundred 
and  eighty-six  dollars  and  thirty-nine  cents,  which,  on  your  order,  I  pro- 
pose to  place  in  the  State  Treasury. 

Under  the  Act  of  February  twentieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty,  I  sup- 
posed this  last  named  sum  would  go  into  the  General  Fund;  but  as  the 
National  tax  is  not  all  paid,  I  think  it  advisable  not  to  place  this  money 
in  that  fund  until  it  is  known  that  the  receipts  into  the  Federal  Tax  Fund 
during  the  approaching  settlements  of  the  County  Treasurers  will  be  fully 
sufficient  to  pay  said  tax,  as  in  case  of  deficiency,  I  think  this  money 
should  first  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  said  Federal  tax. 

If  my  desire  could  be  gratified,  a  donation  of  this  money  should  be 
made  for  the  Nation,  for  the  purpose  of  further  assisting  it  in  this  time  of 
peril,  and  as  this  would  require  the  assent  of  the  Legislature,  it  is  for  you 
to  consider  if  it  be  not  advisable  to  hold  this  money  unused  until  legisla- 
tive directions  can  be  had. 


147 


The  total  of  Federal  tax  assumed  by  the  State  is $254,538  66§ 

The  payment  actually  made  is - $63,839  31 

The  deciuction  to  which  the  State  is  entitled  is 7,093  25§ 


70,932  56§ 
Leaving  the  amount  still  to  be  paid  by  the  State -  - $183,606  10 

The  saving  of  the  State  at  this  payment  has  been  said  deduction  of  10  per  cent-     $7,093  25§ 
And  said  sum  saved  on  payment,  of 4,486  39 

Total $11,579  64§ 

This  includes  every  cent  saved,  and  was  impossible  to  make  it  greater 
under  the  circumstances.  It  is  true  the  last  Legislature  anticipated  saving 
a  greater  sum,  but  as  the  State  failed  to  make  any  payment  in  June  last, 
on  which  payment  it  would  be  entitled  to  fifteen  per  cent  deduction,  and 
as  it  had  not  sufficient  money  to  make  full  payment  in  September,  ten  per 
cent  was  lost  on  the  deficiency,  for  all  which  there  was  no  remedy;  the 
collections  under  the  State  laws  being  made  too  late  to  enable  the  State 
to  receive  the  full  benefits  offered  by  Congress,  and  intended  to  be  secured 
by  the  Legislature  when  it  provided  for  the  State  to  pay  the  tax. 

Since  completing  said  payment  to  the  United  States  this  is  the  first 
report  made  from  this  office,  and  I  avail  myself  of  the  first  opportunity  as 
provided  by  law  to  advise  you  of  the  facts. 

.     (Signed:)  D.  R.  ASHLEY,  State  Treasurer. 


EXHIBIT  No.  14. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  792. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  December  18,  1883 — Mr.  Miller  of 
California,  asked  and,  by  unanimous  consent,  obtained  leave  to  bring  in 
the  following  bill;  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Finance: 

A  BILL 

To  adjust  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  several  States 
and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America^  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  credit  each  of  the 
several  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia  with  the 
amounts  of  money  heretofore  laid  upon  and  apportioned  to  said  States, 
Territories,  and  District  of  Columbia,  respectively,  levied  as  a  direct  tax 
under  the  provisions  of  the  eighth  section  of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved 
August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  entitled  "An  Act  to  provide 
increased  revenue  from  imports,  to  pay  interest  on  the  public  debt,  and  for 
other  purposes;"  and  he  shall  thereafter  state  an  account  between  the 
United  States  and  each  of  said  States,  Territories,  and  District,  respect- 
ively, and  he  shall  pay  to  each  thereof,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury 
not  otherwise  appropriated,  such  sums  of  money  as  may  appear  to  the 
credit  of  each  thereof  upon  the  books  of  the  Treasury  arising  from  such 
settlements. 


148 
EXHIBIT  No.  15. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  110.    Printer's  No.,  110. 

In  the  House   of   Representatives.     December  10,   1883 — Read  twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A   BILL 

To  adjust  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  several  States 
and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  credit  each  of  the  several 
States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia  with  the  amounts  of 
money  heretofore  laid  upon  and  apportioned  to  said  States,  Territories,  and 
District  of  Columbia,  respectively,  levied  as  a  direct  tax  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  eighth  section  of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  fifth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  entitled  "An  Act  to  provide  increased 
revenue  from  imports  to  pay  interest  on  the  public  debt,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses;" and  he  shall  thereafter  state  an  account  between  the  United  States 
and  each  of  said  States,  Territories,  and  District,  respectively;  and  he  shall 
pay  to  each  thereof,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appro- 
priated, such  sums  of  money  as  may  appear  to  the  credit  of  each  thereof 
upon  the  books  of  the  Treasury  arising  from  such  settlements. 


EXHIBIT  No.  16. 

Washington  City,  D.  C, 
January  10,  1884. 

DIRECT  TAX  OF  AUGUST  5,  1861. 

To  the  Chairman  Senate  Committee  on  Finance: 

Sir:  Senate  Bill  No.  795,  introduced  in  the  Senate  on  the  eighteenth 
day  of  December,  1883,  by  Senator  Miller  of  California,  and  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Finance,  provides  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
shall  credit  each  State  with  the  amounts  assessed  against  it  for  direct  taxes 
under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861.  The  effect  of  it  will  be  to  return  to  those 
States  which  have  paid,  the  amounts  of  such  assessments,  and  to  release 
those  which  have  not  paid,  from  all  taxes  and  from  liability  for  them. 
The  levy  provided  for  in  the  Act  of  August,  1861,  was  for  twenty  millions, 
and  it  provided  for  a  deduction  of  fifteen  per  cent  if  the  same  was  paid  by 
the  last  day  of  June;  and  ten  per  cent  if  paid  by  the  last  day  of  Septem- 
ber, 1862;  that  is,  giving  the  States  the  right  to  assume  the  payment  of 
the  amount,  and  thus  avoid  levying  upon  the  real  estate,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  allowing  the  payers  an  equivalent  to  what  it  was  supposed  would  be 
the  expense  to  the  Government  for  collecting  it.  Whilst  the  right  of  the 
Government  to  raise  revenue  by  direct  taxation  is  unquestionable,  it  is 
patent  that  this  tax  was  in  the  nature  of  an  enforced  loan,  and  it  was 
required  to  meet  the  great  exigency  then  upon  the  country.  Fifteen  of  the 
States  and  Territories  still  owe  large  balances  on  account  of  this  tax,  whilst 


149 

many  of  the  others  came  forward  promptly  and  assumed  and  paid  it,  or 
else  it  was  collected  from  them  in  the  mode  provided  by  the  statute,  or  else 
by  crediting  against  it  demands  due  to  them  from  the  Government. 

The  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  the  Senate  through  reso- 
lution of  March  28,  1884,  asking  for  a  statement  of  this  war  tax,  shows 
that  the  compliance  with  the  law  has  been  very  unequal  and  altogether 
partial.  Several  States  now  owe  the  Government  from  a  quarter  to  half  a 
million  of  dollars  each  on  account  of  this  tax,  whilst  others  have  paid  in 
full  more  than  twenty  years  ago. 

An  examination  of  the  question  clearly  indicates  that  one  of  two  courses 
should  now  be  adopted  in  relation  to  this  tax;  that  in  order  to  equalize  this 
burden  the  States  which  have  paid  should  be  credited  with  the  amount 
assessed  against  them,  and  be  paid  the  balance  upon  the  adjustment  of  the 
accounts,  or  else  that  the  Government  should  proceed  to  enforce  the  Acts 
against  the  delinquent  States,  and  collect  the  balance  now  remaining 
unpaid. 

To  the  latter  course  many  objections  will  at  once  suggest  themselves. 
The  first,  perhaps,  would  be  that  the  Government  does  not  need  the  money; 
the  time  in  which  the  States  can  assume  it  has  passed,  under  the  provisions 
of  the  law,  and  the  machinery  for  its  collection  has  passed  out  of  use.  An 
appropriation  will  therefore  be  necessary  in  order  to  provide  the  suitable 
machinery;  and  the  enforcement  of  the  Act  can  only  be  made  now  with 
the  additions  of  the  penalty  of  fifty  per  centum,  and,  according  to  the  con- 
struction of  the  Treasury  Department,  a  sum  as  interest  at  the  rate  of  ten 
per  centum  from  the  first  day  of  July,  1862,  which  would  be  a  sum  of  two 
hundred  and  seventy  per  cent,  in  addition  to  the  quota  as  originally  fixed. 
Unnecessary  as  this  would  be,  it  is  clearly  more  equal  and  just,  and  there- 
fore more  desirable,  than  that  Alabama  and  Georgia  should  each  owe  the 
Government  over  half  a  million  dollars,  and  Mississippi,  Tennessee,  Texas, 
and  Virginia  about  a  quarter  of  a  million  each;  whilst  the  Government  has 
had  the  use  for  more  than  twenty  years  of  the  full  quota  promptly  paid  by 
many  other  States,  and  whilst  from  South  Carolina  it  has  not  only  actually 
collected  more  than  was  due,  but  has  done  so  by  selling  out  an  entire  town 
and  over  fifty-two  thousand  acres  of  agricultural  land  at  merely  nominal 
prices,  the  titles  to  which  have  been  declared  valid  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  seems  but  reasonable  that  the  amounts  paid  should 
be  returned  to  the  several  States  that  have  paid  said  tax,  leaving  them  to 
adjust  any  question  which  may  arise  with  their  own  citizens  in  those  cases 
in  which  the  amounts  have  been  collected  from  individuals,  personally,  or 
by  the  sale  of  property,  and  thus  avoid  the  unnecessary  expense  of  collect- 
ing the  balances,  which  are  not  needed,  and  avoid  the  constant  issues  and 
friction  that  have  arisen  and  are  constantly  arising  between  the  States  and 
the  General  Government,  in  consequence  of  the  amounts  earned  by  the 
several  States,  which,  instead  of  being  paid  in  cash  to  said  States  are  now 
credited  upon  their  delinquent  direct  tax  of  1861,  upon  the  books  of  the 
United  States  Treasury  Department. 

Sound  statesmanship  suggests,  provided  it  does  not  now  even  demand, 
that  all  the  unadjusted  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  several 
States  should  be  now  adjusted,  and  the'  logic  and  propriety  of  an  adjust- 
ment of  this  kind  was  forcibly  and  clearly  shown  in  the  language  of  a  dis- 
tinguished Senator  during  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  and  now  a  member 
of  the  Senate,  Senator  Morgan  of  Alabama,  and  whose  words  are  found 
recorded  on  page  4112  of  the  Congressional  Record,  in  the  proceedings  of 
the  Senate  on  May  19,  1882,  and  are  as  follows,  to  wit: 


150 

Let  us  wipe  out  all  of  these  debts ;  let  us  make  a  clean  book  of  it  between  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  and  the  various  States,  so  far  as  these  debts  are  concerned. 

It  is  right  and  proper  it  should  be  done,  and  in  effect  this  has  been  done. 

It  seems  to  me  there  could  scarcely  be  a  more  hazardous  condition  of  affairs  in  this 
country  than  for  a  State  to  be  indebted  to  the  United  States  Government,  or  for  the  Gov- 
ernment to  be  indebted  to  a  State.  Such  relations  ought  not  to  exist  between  the  States 
and  the  Union.  Their  transactions  ought  to  be  cash  transactions.  It  is  contrary  to  sound 
policy  to  have  States  indebted  to  the  Government,  or  to  have  the  Government  indebted 
to  the  States. 

If  either  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any  State,  should  refuse  to  pay  its 
debts,  there  is  no  remedy  for  it  but  war,  and  we  ought  never  to  allow  ourselves  to  be  put 
in  a  condition  where  the"  only  remedy  and  redress  for  our  differences  and  difficulties  is  war. 

Who  can  collect  a  judgment  out  of  a  State,  although  the  United  States  may  be  plaintiff 
in  that  judgment? 

Who  can  collect  a  judgment  against  the  United  States,  although  the  State  of  New  York 
may  be  plaintiff  in  the  judgment? 

There  is  no  compulsory  power  to  reach  the  exigency.  If  you  have  to  resort  to  compul- 
sion under  such  circumstances,  war  is  the  only  compulsion  to  which  you  can  resort. 

Therefore,  sir,  I  protest  that  we  never  allow  the  relation  between  the  States  and  the 
Federal  Government  to  become  of  such  a  character  as  that  strife  might  be  the  result. 

It  would  be  a  healing  act  which  would  benefit  these  people  greatly,  if  we  could  now 
to-day  clean  the  books  of  the  Treasury  of  all  the  obligations  between  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  and  the  States,  growing  out  of  these  two  statutes  of  which  I  speak. 

I  suljmit  this  to  the  candid  judgment  and  consideration  of  Senators.  If  they  are  not 
prepared  to  do  it— if  they  are  not  willing  to  do  it— I  hope  the  day  may  soon  arrive  when 
they  will  be  willing. 

I  am  quite  as  sure  as  I  now  address  the  Senate,  that  the  people  of  this  country,  from 
border  to  border,  would  approve  of  an  arrangement  by  which  all  these  debts  were  to  be 
obliterated. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
State  A^ent  and  Counsel  for  California. 


EXHIBIT  No.  17. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    House  Bill  No.  110. 

House  Bill  No.  110  was  introduced  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  in  the 
House,  December  10,  1883,  and  referred  to  the  House  Committee  on 
Claims,  and  is  as  follows,  to  wit: 

A  BILL 

To  adjust  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  several  States  and  Territories  and 

the  District  of  Columbia. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized 
and  directed  to  credit  to  each  of  the  several  States  and  Territories,  and  the  District  of 
Columbia,  with  the  amounts  of  money  heretofore  laid  upon  and  apportioned  to  said 
States,  Territories,  and  District  of  Columbia,  respectively,  levied  as  a  direct  tax  under 
the  provisions  of  the  eighth  section  of  the  Act  of  Congress,  approved  August  fifth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  entitled  "An  Act  to  provide  increased  revenue  from 
imports  t6  pay  interest  on  the  pubUc  debt,  and  for  other  purposes ; "  and  he  shall  there- 
after state  an  account  between  the  United  States  and  each  of  said  States,  Territories,  and 
District,  respectively;  and  he  shall  pay  to  each  thereof,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasurv 
not  otherwise  aj)propriated,  such  sums  of  money  as  may  appear  to  the  credit  of  each 
thereof  upon  the  books  of  the  Treasury  arising  from  such  settlements. 

The  intention  and  effect  of  this  bill  is  to  refund  to  the  several  States  and  Territories, 
and  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  people  of  all  thereof,  the  amounts  of  the  direct  tax 
which  each  thereof  respectively  have  heretofore  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States,  under  the  direct  tax  Acts  of  Congress,  and  to  release  such  States,  Territories,  and 
District,  and  people  thereof,  from  hereafter  paying  such  amounts  as  may  appear  dehn- 
quent  or  due  by  them,  as  shown  upon  the  books  of  the  United  States  Treasury  Depart- 
ment, thereby  equalizing  the  burden  heretofore  placed  upon  them,  and  reinstate  all  of 
them  upon  an  equal  footing  in  regard  to  said  tax,  and  restore  their  financial  relation  with 
the  General  Government  as  the  same  existed  prior  to  August  5, 1861,  and  June  7.  1802. 

In  some  instances  certain  of  the  States  and  Territories  assumed  and  paid  this  direct 
tax  in  full;  in  others  only  partial  payment  has  been  made  by  certain  States,  and  in  others 
no  portion  has  been  either  assumed  or  paid  at  aU, 


151 

This  direct  tax  was,  in  some  respects,  in  the  nature  of  a  forced  loan,  and 
the  effect  of  the  passage  of  this  bill  will  be  to  refund  this  loan  to  the  States, 
Territories,  District,  and  persons  that  have  paid  same,  and  pro  tanto,  and 
to  release  from  paying  in  all  instances  whenever  any  of  the  States  or  per- 
sons have  failed  to  pay,  and  thus  wipe  out  from  the  books  of  the  Treasury 
Department  all  evidences  of  delinquency  on  the  part  of  any  State  and 
people  thereof. 

Under  the  present  rulings  of  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury, 
whenever  any  one  of  said  delinquent  States  earns  any  sum,  either  by  a 
direct  appropriation  from  Congress  or  from  the  five  per  centum  of  the  net 
proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  or  allowances  for  advances  made 
during  any  war,  or  from  any  other  source  whatsoever,  said  amounts,  in- 
stead of  being  paid  over  to  such  State  so  earning,  receiving,  or  being  allowed 
same,  are  credited  (as  partial  payments)  to  the  amount  apportioned  to  said 
States  and  not  paid,  but  delinquent,  and  thereby  reducing  their  said  debt 
to  the  United  States  pro  tanto. 

The  machinery  by  which  this  direct  tax  has  been  collected  has  not  been 
uniform  in  its  working  and  application,  and  the  rulings  of  the  Treasury 
Department  thereon  have  not  been  in  perfect  harmony.  In  some  instances 
the  States  paid  said  tax  direct,  and  in  other  instances  the  tax  has  been 
levied  directly  upon  the  property  of  citizens  within  the  delinquent  States, 
and  in  many  instances  with  great  distress. 

During  the  administration  of  the  Treasury  Department  under  Hon.  H. 
McCulloch,  and  of  the  First  Comptroller's  office  under  Hon.  A.  G.  Porter, 
not  only  were  certain,  sums  paid  to  the  delinquent  States,  notwithstanding 
such  delinquency,  as  in  the  case  of  Georgia,  but  even  a  refusal  was  made 
to  permit  a  delinquent  State,  as  in  the  case  of  Texas,  from  ever  paying  the 
same  to  the  United  States.  This  rule  adopted  by  Hon.  A.  G.  Porter  has 
not  been  followed  by  the  present  Comptroller,  Hon.  William  Lawrence,  but 
just  the  opposite  is  the  rule,  and  is  as  hereinbefore  declared  to  be. 

When  the  State  of  Texas  offered  to  assume  the  payment  of  the  uncol- 
lected portion  of  the  direct  tax  due  by  her  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act 
of  June  7,  1862,  the  Hon.  H.  McCulloch,  on  December  28,  1866,  refused  to 
receive  same,  as  fully  appears  from  his  letters  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
to  Hon.  J.  W^.  Throckmorton,  Governor  of  Texas,  and  is  as  follows : 

Treasury  Department,  December  28,  1866. 

Sir:  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  December  fourteenth,  in  which 
vou  inclose  a  copy  of  an  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  Texas,  assuming  payment  of  the  uncol- 
lected portion  of  the  direct  tax  due  from  Texas  under  the  provisions  or  the  law  of  June  7, 
1862.  You  ask  for  a  statement  showing  the  amount  collected  and  the  sum  still  due.  The 
law  under  which  this  tax  has  been  collected  contains  no  provision  authorizing  its  assump- 
tion by  a  State,  the  permissory  clause  of  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  not  having  been 
reenacted  in  that  of  June  7,  1862.  In  the  absence  of  such  a  provision,  this  department 
would  not  be  justified  in  recognizing  such  assumption.  In  my  annual  report  of  Decem- 
ber, 1865, 1  recommended  that  sales  under  this  law  should  be  suspended  until  the  States 
interested  had  an  opportunity  of  assuming  payment  of  the  tax,  but  this  recommendation 
has  only  been  so  far  carried  out  as  to  authorize  the  suspension  of  collections  for  a  definite 
time,  no  provision  for  assuming  the  debt  being  contained  in  the  law  which  gives  authority 
for  such  suspension. 

Under  such  circumstances  it  is  unnecessary  to  reply  in  detail  to  that  portion  of  your 
letter  which  asks,  for  a  statement  of  collections,  or  to  your  suggestion  for  the  acceptance 
of  Texas  indemnity  bonds  in  part  payment. 

(Signed:)  H.  McCULLOCH, 

Secretarj^  of  the  Treasury. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Throckmorton,  Governor  of  Texas. 

Treasury  Department,  March  13,  1867. 

Sir:  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  February  nineteenth,  proposing  a  plan  for  pay- 
ment of  the  direct  taxes  still  due  by  citizens  of  Texas  to  the  United  States.    As  the  plan 


152 

proposed  proceeds  wholly  upon  the  assumption  that  payment  of  their  taxes  may  be 
accepted  from  the  State  government,  I  am  under  the  necessity  of  calling  your  attention 
to  the  inclosed  copy  of  my  former  letter  of  December  28,  1866;  a  letter  which,  from  the 
tenor  of  that  just  received,  must,  I  fear,  have  failed  to  reach  you. 

As  the  direct  tax  laws  remain  unchanged  since  that  letter'was  written,  I  have  only  to 
repeat  that  this  department  is  not  at  liberty  to  accept  payment  in  any  other  manner,  or 
through  any  other  agencies,  than  as  proposed  in  those  laws. 

(Signed:)  H.  McCULLOCH, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Hon.  J.  W.  Throckmorton,  Governor  of  Texas. 

So  that  it  would  appear  that  while  the  head  of  the  Treasury  Department 
at  one  date  construing  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  provides  for 
direct  taxation  in  the  following  language:  "  Representation  and  direct  taxes 
shall  be  apportioned  among  the  States  according  to  their  respective  num- 
bers," held  this  direct  tax  law  to  mean  that  tax  was  due  and  payable  by 
the  citizens  of  the  States,  and  belonging  to  a  class  whose  property  was  taxed, 
we  find  that  same  head,  at  another  date,  holding  that  such  tax  was  due 
by  the  State  in  its  political  capacity. ^^ 

Senate  Ex.  Doc.  24,  first  session,  Forty-sixth  Congress,  contains  a  most 
complete  history  of  this  character  of  legislation,  and  of  the  liability  of  the 
States  in  the  premises,  and  the  official  views  therein  contained  are  sup- 
ported by  authority — legislative  and  judicial — from  the  date  of  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  July  12,  1776,  to  May  24,  1879,  the 
date  of  said  report  of  Hon.  A.  G.  Porter,  then  First  Comptroller  of  the 
Treasury  Department;  and  also  contains  all  the  statutes  of  the  United 
States  relating  to  direct  taxes  in  this  country  by  Congress,  from  1798  to 
1868,  which,  with  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  85,  second  session.  Forty-seventh  Con- 
gress, and  the  letter  of  the  Treasury  Department  Officer  of  Internal  Rev- 
enue, May  3,  1880,  contain  much  valuable  information  on  this  subject;  and 
to  all  of  which  your  honorable  committee  is  now  referred. 

From  these  reports  it  would  appear  that  the  amount  of  money  that  would 
be  refunded,  under  this  bill,  to  the  several  States,  Territories,  and  people 
thereof,  that  have  heretofore  paid  said  tax,  would  aggregate  the  sum  of 
about  fifteen  millions  of  dollars. 

Wherefore,  and  in  view  of  the  foregoing,  and  of  the  rulings  of  the  Treas- 
ury Department  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861  (U.  S.  Stats,  vol.  —  p. — ) 
and  those  under  the  Act  of  June  7, 1862  (U.  S.  Stats,  vol.  —  p.  — ),  it  is  sug- 
gested that  a  substitute  for  said  House  Bill  No.  110  be  favorably  reported 
by  honorable  committee  to  your  honorable  body,  and  of  the  form,  as  follows, 
to  wit: 

A  BILL 

To  adjust  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  several  States  and  Territories  and 

the  District  of  Golumhia. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized 
and  directed  to  credit  each  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia, respectively,  with  the  amounts  of  money  laid,  levied,  apportioned,  and  charged  upon 
them,  respectively,  as  a  direct  tax  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861, 
entitled  "An  Act  to  provide  increased  revenue  from  imports,  to  pay  interest  on  the  public  _ 
debt,  and  for  other  purposes;"  and  the  Act  of  June  7,  1862,  entitled  "''An  Act  for  the  collec- ' 
tion  of  direct  taxes  in  insurrectionary  districts  within  the  United  States,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses ;"  and  he  shall  thereafter  state  an  account  between  the  United  States  and  each  of 
said  States,  Territories,  and  District  of  Columbia,  respectively,  and  he  shall  pay  to  each 
thereof,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  such' sums  of 
money  as  may  appear  to  the  credit  of  each  thereof  upon  the  books  of  the  Treasury  arising 
from  such  settlements. 

Verv  respectfully, 

JOHNMULLAN, 
Agent  and  Attorney  for  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada. 


153 

EXHIBIT   NO.    18. 

LETTER  FROM  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THJ5  TREASURY, 

Recommending  the  passage  of  bills  H.  R.  No.  110  and  Senate  No.  795,  to 
adjust  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  several  States 
and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia. 

Treasury  Department,  June  14,  1884. 

Hon.  A.  J.  Warner,  Chairman  of  Sub-Committee  of  Committee  on  Claims, 
House  of  Representatives: 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  of  acknowledging  the  receipt  from  you  of  H.  R. 
Bill  No.  110,  entitled  "  A  Bill  to  adjust  certain  accounts  between  the  United 
States  and  the  several  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia." 

This  bill  relates  to  the  direct  tax  of  $20,000,000  annually  laid  upon  the 
United  States,  and  apportioned  to  the  States,  the  Territories,  and  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  under  the  Act  of  Congress  passed  August  5,  1861  (12 
Stat,  at  Large,  p.  294). 

The  purpose  of  the  bill  is  to  relieve  and  discharge  from  further  liability 
for  that  tax  those  States  and  Territories  which  have  not  paid  the  portion 
thereof  apportioned  to  them  respectively;  and  to  repay,  out  of  any  money 
in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  those  States  and  Territories 
which  have  paid  any  portion,  the  sums  by  them  respectively  paid.  Though 
by  the  Act  above  cited  this  tax  was  made  an  annual  one,  an  attempt  to  col- 
lect it  for  more  than  one  year  has  never  been  made.  By  that  attempt  there 
were  collected  about  $15,000,000,  principally  from  the  States  which  did  not 
seek  to  go  out  of  the  Union;  and  there  were  left  uncollected  about  $5,000,- 
000,  principally  in  the  States  which  did  seek  to  go  out  of  the  Union.  The 
sum  uncollected  remains  a  charge  against  these  States,  and,  for  the  pur- 
poses of  this  letter,  it  may  be  assumed  that  it  is  a  valid  and  enforcible 
charge.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  no  legislator  at  this  day  would  propose 
to  raise  revenue  by  a  tax  of  that  kind.  There  is  no  need  of  resorting  to 
such  methods.  The  revenues  of  the  Government  from  sources  not  so  extra- 
ordinary, and  collectible  by  means  and  appliances  not  so  objectionable  as 
those  involved  therein,  are  ample  for  its  purposes.  They  are,  indeed, 
superabundant,  and  the  concern  of  statesmen  is  rather  how  they  may  be 
reduced  than  how  they  may  be  increased.  The  Government  then  needs  not 
the  money  to  be  got  by  enforcing  this  tax. 

At  the  same  time  it  is  plain  that  to  enforce  it  would  put  a  grievous  bur- 
den upon  the  people  of  the  States  which  are  in  default  in  payment.  It 
needs  no  array  of  facts  to  show  this.  Congress,  in  one,  if  not  both  branches, 
has  this  session  considered  the  proposition  of  large  pecuniary  aid  to  those 
people  to  help  them  place  and  keep  up  common  schools,  and  the  Senate 
has  passed  a  bill  therefor. 

If  there  be  need  for  that  succor,  there  would  be  harm  in  enforcing  this 
charge.  It  is  to  be  considered,  too,  that  while  taxes  are  seldom  looked 
upon  with  favor,  this  would  be  specially  objectionable.  The  purpose  for 
which  it  was  laid  can  be  remembered  with  distaste.  It  can  scarcely  be 
expected  that  there  would  be  cheerful  aid  from  the  State  authorities  in  the 
enforcement  of  it.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  there  would  be  any.  Indeed 
it  would,  without  further  legislation,  have  to  be  enforced  by  the  machinery 
provided  by  the  Act  under  which  it  was  laid.     This  would  call  for  the 


154 

appointment  of  numerous  Federal  officials,  who  would  go  among  the  peo- 
ple as  obnoxious  exactors.  I  think  it  must  be  conceded  that  there  is,  and 
ever  will  be,  great  reluctance  to  ever  setting  about  the  collection  of  this 
tax.  That  it  never  had  great  favor,  is  shown  by  that  it  was  never  put  in 
force  but  one  year.  In  practical  effect,  then,  the  law  for  it  is  obsolete. 
Why,  then,  should  there  remain  this  unenforced  liability,  a  menace  to  the 
people,  the  enforcement  of  which  is  called  for  by  no  public  need,  nor  by 
any  public  opinion? 

In  my  judgment,  the  people  and  the  property  of  the  States  in  default 
should  be  relieved  and  discharged  from  it. 

But  to  give  such  relief  and  discharge  would  be  to  put  an  inequality  of 
burden  upon  the  States  which  paid,  unless  they  in  turn  were  in  some  way 
relieved.  This  the  bill  proposes  to  do  by  repaying  to  them  the  sums  re- 
ceived from  them.  Assuming  that  the  tax  was  lawful,  and  the  collection^ 
as  far  as  made,  was  warranted,  this,  apart  from  the  circumstances,  would 
be  a  proposition  to  donate  to  the  States  surplus  moneys  of  the  United 
States — a  proposition  which  I  should  not  favor.  But,  as  connected  with 
the  proposition  to  discharge  from  onerous  and  needless  liability  one  portion 
of  the  people,  it  takes  on  a  different  character;  it  is  presented  as  an  adjust- 
ment between  different  bodies  of  the  people,  and  is  worthy  of  acceptation. 
Indeed,  it  would  be  unjust  to  the  people  of  the  loyal  States  to  release  the 
people  of  the  once  insurrectionary  States  from  their  liability,  without  refund- 
ing to  the  former  the  sums  paid  by  them,  and  there  are  analogies  in  the 
legislation  of  Congress.  Acts  have  been  passed  refunding  to  States  mon- 
eys raised  by  them  for  the  raising,  arming,  and  equipping  of  troops  for  the 
Army  of  the  United  States  in  the  civil  war,  and  for  making  other  refunds 
of  like  character.  The  purpose  of  laying  this  direct  tax  was  to  aid  in  the 
ultimate  payment  of  the  extraordinary  expenses  of  the  Government  caused 
by  the  civil  war.  The  raising,  arming,  and  equipping  of  troops  by  the 
States  served  to  keep  down  those  expenses  for  the  time.  It  was  a  voluntary 
act  upon  the  part  of  the  States.  There  is  no  violation  of  principle  or  funda- 
mental law  in  repaying  to  the  States  from  the  funds  of  the  United  States 
the  cost  thereof.  The  purpose  and  effect  of  this  bill  is  not  so  unlike  in 
nature  to  that  as  not  also  to  be  freed  from  the  objections  to  a  bald  distri- 
bution among  the  States  of  what  are  called  the  surplus  revenues  of  the 
United  States. 

Under  the  peculiar  facts  of  the  case,  and  as  it  is  not  likely  to  become  a 
precedent  for  other  disposals  of  Federal  moneys,  my  judgment  is,  that  the 
proposed  measure  is  a  good  one.  It  is  true  that  exactly  equal  justice  cannot 
be  done  in  carrying  out  the  proposition  of  the  bill.  Thus,  in  some  of  the 
Southern  States  the  tax  was  to  some  extent  enforced.  Tax  sales  were  made 
of  pieces  of  real  estate  in  instances  for  less  than  the  value  of  them.  Only 
the  surplus  of  purchase  money  over  the  tax  and  charges  has  been  availa- 
ble to  the  owners,  and  they  have  lost  the  difference  between  that  and  the 
total  of  the  purchase  money,  and  between  the  purchase  money  and  the  real 
value. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  Northern  States,  the  pay- 
ment to  the  United  States  of  the  tax  was  assumed  by  the  State  government, 
which  collected  the  amount  of  its  own  people  in  its  own  tax  levy.  Of 
course,  in  the  changes  of  citizenship  and  of  ownership  of  taxable  property, 
while  a  repayment  into  the  State  Treasury  will  tend  to  reduce  the  amount 
of  State  tax,  it  will  not  inure  to  the  benefit  of  some  of  those  who  in  1861 
were  taxpayers.  But  these  failures  of  full  and  general  compensation  in 
dealing  with  transactions  so  long  past  must  ensue,  and  are  not  to  be 
potentially  urged  against  proposed  measures,  which  in  the  main  do  work 
equal  benefit. 


155 

It  is  worthy  .of  consideration,  too,  whether  this  is  not  a  suitable  occasion 
to  deal  with  the  matter  of  the  Federal  surplus  moneys  deposited  or  to  be 
deposited  with  the  States  by  the  Act  of  1836.     (5  Stats,  at  Large,  55,  207.) 

Why  may  not  those  States  which  made  payment  of  their  portion  of  the 
direct  tax  under  the  Act  of  1861  be  debited  in  the  settlement  proposed  by 
the  bill  before  your  committee  with  the  amount  of  that  deposit  made  with 
them,  and  be  paid  the  balance,  and  thus  the  liability  of  the  United  States 
under  the  deposit  Ac.t  be  extinguished  ? 

Thus  the  anomalous  state  of  things  existing  under  the  last  named  Act 
would  be  ended,  so  far  as  those  States  are  concerned. 

It  is  true  that  some  of  the  States,  as  Virginia  and  Arkansas,  for  instance, 
may  not  have  received  their  full  proportion  of  the  deposit  fund  of  1836; 
and  it  is  true  that  in  remitting  the  liability  of  the  States  to  repay  the  de- 
posit with  them,  there  will,  as  to  some  of  them,  be  no  claim  for  a  refund 
under  this  bill  against  which  that  liability  may  be  set  off ;  and  that,  there- 
fore, complete  equality  of  benefit  and  burden  may  not  be  realized.  It  is 
well  to  consider,  however,  whether,  inasmuch  as  it  is  desirable  that  the 
relation  of  creditor  and  debtor  between  the  United  States  and  the  States 
be  closed,  it  should  not  be  done  at  this  favorable  opportunity,  though  at 
the  sacrifice  of  complete  equality. 

In  connection  herewith,  I  refer  to  the  fifty-third  section  of  the  Direct  Tax 
Act  (see  12  Stats,  at  Large,  pp.  311,  312),  and  suggest  that  there  may  be 
instances  in  which  the  principle  of  that  section  may  be  applied. 

I  also  inclose  herewith  a  communication  to  me  from  the  First  Comp- 
troller of  the  Treasury,  which  presents  views  in  accord  with  some  of  those 
expressed  by  me,  and  gives  tables  of  value,  and  a  draft  of  a  bill;  and  to 
this  communication  I  ask  attention. 
Very  respectfully, 

CHAS.  J.  FOLGER,  Secretary. 


EXHIBIT  No.  19. 

Treasury  Department,  First  Comptroller's  Office,  | 
Washington,  D.  C,  May  2,  1884.      j 

Hon.  Charles  J.  Folger,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury: 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  I  have  received  a  letter  from  the  Hon. 
Wade  Hampton  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  dated  twenty-fourth 
ultimo,  transmitting  to  me  a  copy  of  Senate  Bill  No.  795,  to  adjust  certain 
accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  several  States  and  Territories, 
and  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  asking  me  to  give  my  views  on  it.  . 

I  have  also  received  a  letter  dated  twenty-fifth  ultimo,  from  the  Hon. 
Barclay  Henley  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  transmitting  a  copy  of 
House  Bill  No.  1.10,  which  is  in  form  similar  to  said  Senate  Bill. 

This  latter  letter  is  addressed  to  you  and  to  me  jointly,  "to  be  furnished 
with  the  views"  of  the  Treasury  Department,  and  with  mine,  also,  in  rela- 
tion thereto. 

^  The  object  of  these  bills  is  to  remit,  so  far  as  not  collected  or  paid,  the 
direct  taxes  laid  upon  and  apportioned  to  the  States,  Territories,  and  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  under  the  Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  to 
refund  to  such  States,  Territories,  and  District,  respectively,  the  amount  of 
such  taxes,  so  far  as  paid  in  any  mode  whatever. 

I  have  considered  the  subject  with  care,  and  now  have  the  honor  to  state 
that,  in  my  judgment,  it  is  alike  just,  judicious,  and  practicable  to  remit 


156 

all  such  taxes  not  yet  collected,  to  refund  the  amounts  paid  "in  any  form  by 
any  State  or  Territory,  and  to  refund  to  private  persons,  or  their  legal  rep- 
resentatives, all  amounts  of  such  tax  by  them  paid  or  collected  by  sale  of 
real  estate  or  otherwise. 

I  have  accordingly  prepared  the  draft  of  a  bill  to  effect  these  objects, 
which  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  for  your  consideration. 

I  will  briefly  state  some  of  the  reasons  in  support  of  the  views  above  pre- 
sented. The  amounts  apportioned  to  States  which  have  not  in  any  form 
paid  or  been  credited  with  any  sums,  as  the  accounts  stand  in  this  office, 
are  as  follows:  / 

Alabama $529,313  33 

Arkansas 261,886  00 

Dakota 3,241  33 

Florida 77,522  67 

Georgia 584,367  33 

Louisiana 385,886  67 

Mississippi : 413,084  67 

New  Mexico 62,648  00 

North  Carolina 576,194  67 

South  Carolina 363,570  67 

Tennessee . 669^498  00 

Texas 355,106  67 

Utah . 26,982  00 

Virginia $937,550  67 

Less 208,479  65 

729,071  02 

Total . $5,038,373  03 

These  are  the  sums  charged  against  the  States  and  Territories  men- 
tioned, all  of  which,  as  stated,  appear  by  the  records  of  this  office  as  unpaid. 
It  is  proper  to  say,  however,  as  to  all  these— except  Alabama,  Dakota,  New 
Mexico,  and  Utah — that  payments  for  each  have  been  made  into  the  Treas- 
ury by  Direct  Tax  Commissioners,  which  have  not  been  settled  in  this 
office. 

Most  of  these  payments  are  shown  in  the  letter  of  the  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Revenue,  appended  to  the  Georgia  case,  4  Lawrence  Compt.  Doc. 
380.  So,  to  a  limited  extent,  other  payments  have  been  made  but  not  yet 
credited. 

I. 

As  to  the  amounts  thus  apportioned  and  which  remain  unpaid,  only 
three  things  can  be  done:  • 

1.  They  can  be  paid  by  an  increase  of  taxes  in  these  States,  if  they  should 
respectively  assume  payment. 

2.  Or  they  can  be  paid  by  enforcing  collection  by  Act  of  Congress  of 
assessments  against  the  real  estate  of  private  owners  thereof,  or; 

3.  They  can  be  left  uncollected. 

First — It  is  certainly  well  understood  that  the  burden  of  taxation  under 
State  and  local  authority  in  these  States  is  such  that  it  cannot  be  desirable 
to  increase  it.  It  is  not  at  all  certain  that  these  States  would  increase  and 
collect  taxes  for  this  purpose.  With  the  general  feeling  which  now  so  for- 
tunately prevails  in  favor  of  Congressional  aid  to  States  to  promote  com- 
mon school  education,  it  is  quite  evident  that  Congress  will  not  require  any 
such  taxes  to  be  levied. 

There  is  no  necessity  now  for  requiring  the  payment  of  these  amounts. 
The  revenues  of  the  Government  are  more  than  abundant,  and  it  is  not  at 
all  probable  that  conditions  will  ever  exist  to  require  the  payment  of  these 
amounts. 


157 

■  Second — The  same  reasons  operate  against  enforced  collections  under  the 
authority  of  an  Act  of  Congress.  In  fact,  it  is  believed  that  there  is  no 
desire  now  on  the  part  of  any  class  of  citizens  that  the  payment  of  this  tax 
should  be  enforced. 

This  in  part  grows  out  of  the  consideration  having  almost  universal 
assent,  that  direct  taxes  are  unequal  and  hence  unjust. 

The  apportionment  against  States  is  made  on  the  basis  of  population 
and  not  wealth,  and  is  hence  unequal  as  between  States. 

When  collection  is  enforced  by  authority  of  Congress  against  real  estate, 
the  inequality  and  injustice  are  aggravated,  because  the  burden  is  imposed 
on  a  species  of  property  generally  less  productive  of  profit  than  any  other, 
and  hence  least  able  to  bear  it,  and  chattel  wealth,  including  a  vast 
amount  of  corporate  resources,  constituting  in  all  a  large  proportion  of  the 
aggregate  of  all  forms  of  property,  totally  escape  from  all  burden,  while 
requiring  and  receiving  more  of  the  protecting  care  of  Government,  and 
hence  realizing  benefits  at  the  expense  of  the  owners  of  real  estate. 

The  objectionable  character  of  direct  taxes  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  they 
have  been  authorized  but  three  times  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution. 
And  although  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861  (12  Stats.  294)  provided  "that  a 
direct  tax  of  twenty  millions  of  dollars  be  and  is  annually  laid  upon  the 
United  States,"  yet  the  purpose  to  collect  all  beyond  one  year  has  been 
abandoned. 

It  may,  then,  be  assumed  that  the  direct  taxes  collected  were  unequal 
and  unjust  as  between  the  States,  and  still  more  so  among  the  property 
owners  of  the  United  States. 

A  wrong  having  thus  been  done,  it  should  be  repaired  by  remitting  the 
taxes  not  collected,  and  refunding  those  collected  upon  the  same  principle 
sanctioned  in  many  statutes  of  remitting  taxes  improperly  assessed,  and 
of  refunding  those  which  have  been  improperly  collected. 

3.  The  result  will  undoubtedly  be  that  the  amounts  of  direct  tax  not 
yet  paid  will  remain  unpaid. 

In  view  of  all  this,  the  inquiry  is  now  presented  whether  an5rthing,  and 
if  so,  what,  should  be  done  as  to  (1)  the  States  which  have  assumed  and 
paid  their  respective  quotas  of  the  direct  tax,  and  (2)  as  to  those  in  which 
sums  allowed  by  accounting  officers  in  their  favor  respectively  have  been 
withheld  and  credited  on  account  of  the  quota  of  such  State. 

It  seems  to  me  advisable  to  refund  to  such  States  the  amount  so  assumed 
and  paid  or  withheld.  This  ^dew  is  supported  by  all  the  considerations 
already  mentioned,  which  show  the  inexpediency  of  enforcing  payment  in 
the  States  the  quotas  of  which  have  not  been  paid.  The  policy  of  refund- 
ing is  supported  by  the  manifest  injustice  of  retaining  money  collected  as 
direct  taxes  from  some  States  from  which  others  are  exempt. 

Equality  of  burdens,  as  among  the  States,  in  those  cases  in  which  they 
are  imposed  in  fixed  proportions  directly  upon  the  real  estate  therein,  is 
simple  justice. 

In  such  cases  inequality  is  injustice. 
•  Assuming  that  no  more  of  the  direct  tax  should  be  collected,  the  only 
mode  of  securing  equality  is  to  refund  the  direct  taxes  collected.     If  this 
refund   should  be   made,  States  would   receive  money  substantially  as 
follows: 


158 


Alabama 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

District  Columbia. 
Florida 


Georgia 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 


$8,491  46 

184,082  18 

247,941  13 

1,516  89 

308,214  00 

74,683  33 

49,437  33 

43.529  81 

71,407  75 

,146,551  33 

904,875  33 

452,088  00 

71,743  33 

716,695  33 

268,515  12 

420,826  00 

436,823  33 

824,581  33 

501,763  33 

108,524  00 

74,742  57 


Missouri $761,127  33 

Nebraska 19,312  00 

Nevada-...*. 4,592  67 

New  Hampshire 218,40()  67 

New  Jersey 450,134  00 

New  Mexico 62,648  00 

New  York 2,603,918  67 

North  Carolina 386,194  45 

Ohio 1,567,089  33 

Oregon 35,140  67 

Pennsylvania 1,946,719  33 

Rhode  Island 116,963  67 

Tennessee 387,722  06 

Texas 130,008  06 

Vermont 211,068  GO 

Virginia 515,569  22 

West  Virginia 208,479  65 

Washington  Territory 7,268  16 

Wisconsin 468,543  11 

South  Carolina 377,961  30 


Tables  showing  the  condition  of  the  direct  tax  accounts  with  the  several 
States  and  Territories  will  be  found  appended  to  the  Georgia  case  (4  Law- 
rence Comp.  Dec.  376,  380).  The  first  table  shows  the  accounts  as  they 
stand  adjusted  in  this  office.  The  second  table  shows  some  payments  not 
yet  adjusted  in  this  office,  and  hence  the  apparent  discrepancy  between 
the  tables.  There  are  still  other  credits  to  a  limited  extent  as  to  some 
States,  not  shown  by  either  of  these  tables. 

III. 


In  some  of  the  States,  the  Tax  Commissioners  under  the  direct  tax 
of  July  7,  1862  (12  Stat.  432),  sold  the  real  estate  of  many  private  own- 
ers, and  thus  collected  in  part  the  quota  of  tax  apportioned  to  such  States 
respectively.  The  Senate  and  House  bills  submitted  for  my  consideration 
propose  to  refund  directly  to  the  State  the  taxes  thus  collected  in  each 
State.  It  is  submitted  that  it  would  seem  more  equitable  and  just  to 
refund  directly  to  the  private  parties  who  paid  such  taxes,  or  whose  lands 
were  sold  to  enforce  payment.  This  is  the  policy -<  established  as  to  the 
"surplus  proceeds"  arising  from  sales  "after  satisfying  the  tax,  costs, 
charges,  and  commissions,"  Act  August  5,  1861  (12  Stat.  304,  Sec.  36); 
Act  June  7,  1862  (12  Stat.  422);  Act  June  8,  1872  (17  Stat.  382);  Act 
March  3,  1883  (22  Stat.  595).  It  is  not  perceived  that  any  State  can 
have  any  claim  to  a  refund  of  money  paid  by  its  citizens.  It  is  believed 
the  draft  of  a  bill  herewith  submitted  may  be  made  the  basis  of  a  judi- 
cious'mode  of  disposing  of  the  subject  to  which  it  applies.  The  last  clause 
of  section  two  of  the  bill  is  added  by  reason  of  the  undoubted  rule  of  law 
learnedly  discussed  and  clearly  stated  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  United 
States  V.  Ross,  92  U.  S.  284. 

I  append  hereto  a  table  showing  with  substantial  accuracy  the  amounts 
of  taxes  remaining  uncollected  in  several  States  and  Territories,  and  which 
it  is  proposed  to  remit,  and  the  amounts  which  it  is  proposed  to  refund  to 
the  several  States  and  Territories. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully, 

WILLIAM   LAWRENCE,  Comptroller. ' 


159 


TABLE. 


Statement  of  the  Condition  of  the  Direct  Tax  Accounts  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  and 
the  District  of  Columbia,  under  Acts  of  August  5, 1861,  and  June  7, 1862,  as  appears  from 
the  Books  of  the  Register's  Office. 


State  or  Territory. 


Amount  Im- 
posed. 


Amount  Paid. 


Fifteen  per  Cent 
Allowance. 


Balance  Due 
United  States. 


Alabama 

Arkansas  -.- 

California- -- -.. 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Dakota 

Delaware  --. -.. 

District  of  Columbia. 

Florida : 

Oeorgia 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa -. 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan  -.. 

Minnesota 

Mississippi. 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New  Hampshire 

New  Jersey 

New  Mexico 

New  York 

North  Carolina . 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode  Island 

Tennessee ... 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

Washington 

Wisconsin 

South  Carolina 


$529,313  33 

261,886  00 

254,538  67 

22,905  33 

308,214  00 

3,241  33 

74,683  33 

49,437  33 

77,522  67 

584,367  33 

1,146,551  33 

904,875  33 

452,088  00 

71,743  33 

713,695  33 

385,886  67 

420,826  00 

436,823  33 

824,581  33 

501,763  33 

108,424  00 

413,084  67 

761,127  33 

19,312  00 

4,592  67 

218,406  67 

450,134  00 

62,648  00 

2,603,918  67 

576,194  67 

1,567,089  33 

35,140  67 

1,946,71«  33 

116,963  67 

669,498  00 

355,106  67 

26,982  00 

211,068  00 

t729,071  02 

t208,479  65 

7,755  33 

519,688  67 

363,570  67 


$8,491  46 

184,082  18 

247,941  13 

1,516  89 

261,987  90 


74,683  33 

49,437  33 

43,529  81 

71,407  75 

974,568  63 

769,144  03 

384,274  80 

71,743  33 

606,641  03 

268,515  12 

357,702  10 

371,299  83 

700,894  14 

426,498  83 

92,245  40 

74,742  57 

646,958  23 

19,312  00 

4,592  67 

185,645  67 

3^2,614  83 

62,648  00 

2,213,330  86 

386,194  45 

1,332,025  93 

35,140  67 

1,654,711  43 

99,419  11 

387,722  06 

130,008  08 


$46,232  10 
"'*4"350'50" 


$520,821  87 

77,803  82 

6,597  54 

21,388  44 


3,241  33 


171,982  70 

135,731  30 

67,813  20 


179,407  80 
515,569  72 
181,306  93 
4,268  16 
429,196  68 
377,961  30 


107,054  30 


63,123  90 
65,523  50 
123,687  19 
75,264  50 
16,278  60 


411,869  10 
(See  note.) 


32,761  00 

67,519  17 

(See  note.) 

390,587  81 


235,063  40 


292,007  90 
17,544  56 


31,660  20 
2y,i72"72' 


39,346  43 
J 14 ,390  63 


33,992  86 
512,959  58 


117,371  55 


338,342  10 


190,000  22 


281,775  94 

225,098  61 

26,982  00 


213,501  30 


3,487  17 
51,145  56 


*  Included  on  compromise. 

t  Joint  resolution  February  25,  1867,  authorized  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  transfer  $208,479  65  of  the 
amount  originally  appropriated  to  Virginia  to  the  State  of  West  Virginia. 
X  Overpaid. 

NOTE. 
Nebraska : 

Amount  collected $4,281  60 

Amount  allowed  by  Act  of  August  7, 1882  (22  Stat.,  p.  314) 15,030  40 

$19,312  00 

New  Mexico: 

Amount  allowed  by  Act  of  July  1,  1862  ( 12  Stat.,  p.  489) 62,648  00 

A   BILL. 


Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  is  author- 
ized and  required  (1)  to  repay  to  the  proper  officer  of  each  State  the 
amount  paid  by  such  State  for  direct  taxes  laid  upon  and  apportioned  to  it, 
as  a  direct  tax  under  the  Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  (2)  to  pay 


160 

to  the  proper  officer  of  any  such  State  any  and  all  sums  allowed  by  the 
accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  as  due  to  it,  but  withheld 
and  credited  on  account  of  such  direct  tax;  and  (3)  to  place  to  the  credit 
of  the  Commissioners  of  the  District  of  Columbia  in  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States  a  sum  equal  to  the  amounts  paid  by  or  collected  from  said 
District  on  account  of  said  direct  tax,  and  (4)  to  cause  to  be  audited  by 
the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  and  paid  to  the 
original  legal  owner  or  owners  of  every  lot  or  parcel  of  land  sold  for  non- 
payment of  such  taxes,  or  to  his  or  their  legal  representatives,  the  amount 
paid  at  such  sales  or  otherwise  collected  after  deducting  the  cost  thereof 
including  charges  and  commissions  not  otherwise  paid. 

And  all  such  taxes  laid  upon  any  State  but  not  paid,  are  hereby  remitted, 
and  the  charges  made  against  such  State  therefor  are  canceled.  All 
accounts  with  any  State  shall  be  so  adjusted  that  taxes  not  collected  are 
remitted  and  amounts  paid  shall  be  refunded. 

And  a  sufficient  sum  of  money  is  appropriated,  out  of  any  mouey  in  the 
Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  make  the  payment  herein  author- 
ized. The  word  "  State"  herein  shall  include  "  Territory"  and  the  District 
of  Columbia,  so  far  as  necessary  to  effect  the  objects  of  this  Act. 

Sec.  2.  In  making  payments  as  aforesaid  to  the  original  legal  owner  or 
owners,  or  their  legal  representatives,  of  any  lot  or  land  sold  for  non-pay- 
ment of  direct  taxes,  and  for  refunding  of  the  surplus  proceeds  of  such 
sales  as  now  authorized  (Act  August  5,  1861,  12  Stats.  304,  Sec.  36),  and 
for  refunding  moneys  collected  or  repaying  money  withheld,  evidence  of 
payment  to  any  officer  authorized  to  receive  it  shall  be  deemed  a  payment 
into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States. 


EXHIBIT  No.  20. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  No.  248G. 

PAYMENT  OF  DIRECT  TAXES. 

February  4,  1885 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on 
the  state  of  the  Union  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Price,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  6047.] 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (PI.  R.  6047)  to 
adjust  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  several  States 
and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  has  had  the  same  under  con- 
sideration, and  reports: 

Under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861  (12  Stat,  at  L.  292),  a  direct  tax  of 
$20,000,000  was  laid  upon  the  United  States,  and  was  apportioned  amongst 
the  different  States  and  Territories,  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  based  on 
population. 

By  Section  53  it  was  provided  that  each  State  might  assume  the  pay- 
ment of  its  quota  thereof,  and  if  it  did  so  on  or  before  the  second  Tuesday  in 
February  next,  after  the  passage  of  the  Act,  it  should  have  a  deduction  of 
fifteen  per  cent  on  so  much  of  the  quota  of  direct  tax  apportioned  to  such 
State  in  lieu  of  the  compensation  of  officers  for  collecting  the  tax  as  was 


161 

actually  paid  into  the  Treasury  on  or  before  the  last  day  of  June,  and  a 
deduction  of  ten  per  cent  upon  so  much  as  should  be  paid  into  the  Treas- 
ury thereafter  and  before  the  last  day  of  September  of  that  year. 

Some  of  the  loyal  States  assumed  their  quotas,  whilst  others  did  not  do 
so.  Of  those  which  assumed  the  payment,  some  paid  prior  to  the  last  of 
June,  others  prior  to  the  last  day  of  September,  whilst  some  of  them  have 
only  paid  in  part,  and  still  owe  balances. 

Of  the  loyal  States  which  did  not  assume  their  quotas,  the  amount  thereof 
has  been  collected  from  some  in  full  by  the  First  Comptroller  stopping  in 
the  Treasury  sums  going  to  them  on  account  of  five  per  cents  from  sales  of 
public  lands  and  other  allowed  claims  in  their  favor  against  the  United 
States. 

An  Act  for  the  collection  of  direct  taxes  in  insurrectionary  districts  within 
the  United  States  was  passed  June  7,  1862.  (12  Stat,  at  L.  422.)  This 
contained  no  provision  for  the  assumption  of  its  quota  by  the  insurrection- 
ary States.  Under  this  Act  a  portion  of  the  quota  of  some  of  the  States 
was  collected  directly  from  the  owners  of  real  estate,  and  other  portions 
were  collected  by  sales  of  real  estate,  whilst  from  others  nothing  whatever 
was  collected. 

Since  the  war,  as  in  the  case  of  loyal  States,  the  First  Comptroller  has 
withheld  and  applied  to  the  quota  of  these  States  such  sums  as  they  were 
entitled  to  receive  on  account  of  five  per  cents  from  the  sales  of  public  lands 
or  upon  other  allowed  claims  in  favor  of  these  States  respectively  against 
the  United  States. 

The  quota  of  each  State  is  not  a  liability  upon  the  State  as  such,  but 
upon  the  real  estate  of  the  people  of  the  State,  and  was  by  the  law  made  a 
lien  upon  each  piece  thereof  in  proportion  of  its  value  to  the  aggregate 
value  of  the  real  estate  in  that  State. 

The  quota  of  each  State  and  Territory  has  been  charged  to  it  upon  the 
books  of  the  Treasury,  and  such  sums  as  have  been  paid  or  collected, 
whether  directly  or  by  sale  of  property,  has  been  credited  against  this  quota, 
as  has  also  all  such  sums  as  were  going  to  said  State  on  account  of  five  per 
cents  from  sales  of  public  lands  and  other  allowed  accounts.  This  system 
of  withholding  sums  due  to  States  and  crediting  them  on  account  of  this 
tax  due  by  its  ^citizens  (or  by  only  a  portion  of  its  citizens  where  some  have 
paid)  is  a  source  of  constant  dissatisfaction  and  friction,  and  at  the  last 
session  of  Congress  a  bill  was  passed  providing  that  a  claim  should  be  paid 
directly  to  a  State  in  money  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  its  being  thus 
credited,  and  a  bill  is  now  pending  in  the  House  to  pay  in  money  to  a 
State  an  amount  which  has  been  credited  in  the  Treasury  upon  its  quota 
of  this  direct  tax.  The  extreme  undesirability  of  these  issues  over  accounts 
between  the  States  and  the  General  Government  cannot  be  overstated,  and 
is  so  apparent  as  not  to  require  to  be  more  than  mentioned.  The  injustice, 
too,  of  the  utter  inequality  of  payments  is  so  apparent  as  to  require  no 
argument  as  to  the  importance  of  adopting  some  mode  of  adjusting  and 
equalizing  them,  and  if  this  cannot  be  done  absolutely,  then  at  least  as  far 
as  is  practicable  and  possible. 

To  do  this  is  the  purpose  of  the  bill  under  consideration.  It  provides 
that  the  account  of  each  State  and  Territory  be  credited  with  a  sum  equal 
to  all  collections  made  from  each  State  and  Territory,  or  any  citizens  thereof, 
under  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  5,  1861,  and  Acts  amendatory 
thereto,  with  an  additional  sum  of  fifteen  per  centum  on  such  payments 
made  without  cost  to  the  United  States,  and  also  to  relinquish  all  claims 
for  all  sums  remaining  unpaid  on  said  direct  tax.  This  will  give  to  those 
States  which  assumed  and  paid  their  quotas  the  benefit  of  the  deductions 
11^ 


162 

to  which  they  thus  entitled  themselves.  In  those  cases  in  which  the  tax 
has  been  collected  from  individuals,  either  in  money  directly  or  by  sale  of 
land,  it  provides,  by  an  amendment  herewith  submitted,  that  the  amount 
thus  paid  back  shall  be  made  to  the  State  in  trust  for  those  of  her  citizens 
who  have  paid  the  same. 

The  bill  was  fully  and  carefully  considered  by  the  late  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  Hon.  Charles  J.  Folger.  On  June  fourteenth,  ultimo,  he  wrote  a 
letter,  in  which  he  uses  the  following  language: 

The  purpose  of  the  bill  is  to  relieve  and  discharge,  from  further  liability  for  that  tax, 
those  States  and  Territories  which  have  not  paid  the  portion  thereof  apportioned  to  them 
respectively;  and  to  repay,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated, 
to  those  States  and  Territories  which  have  paid  any  portion,  the  sums  by  them  respect- 
ively paid.  Though  by  the  Act  above  cited,  this  tax  was  made  an  annual  one,  an  attempt 
to  collect  it  for  more  than  one  year  has  never  been  made.  By  that  attempt  there  were  col- 
lected about  fifteen  millions  of  dollars,  principally  from  the  States  which  did  not  seek  to 
go  out  of  the  Union ;  and  there  were  left  uncollected  about  five  millions  of  dollars,  prin- 
cipally in  the  States  which  did  not  seek  to  go  out  of  the  Union.  The  sum  uncollected 
remains  a  charge  against  these  States,  and,  for  the  purposes  of  this  letter,  it  may  be 
assumed  that  it  is  a  valid  and  enforceable  charge.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  no  legislator 
at  this  day  would  propose  to  raise  revenue  by  a  tax  of  that  kind.  There  is  no  need  of 
resorting  to  such  methods.  The  revenue  of  the  Government  from  sources  not  so  extra- 
ordinary, and  collectible  by  means  and  appliances  not  so  objectionable  as  those  involved 
herein,  are  ample  for  its  purposes.  They  are,  indeed,  superabundant,  and  the  concern  of 
statesmen  is  rather  how  they  may  be  reduced  than  how  they  may  be  increased.  The 
Government  then,  needs  not  the  money  to  be  got  by  enforcing  this  tax. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  plain  that  to  enforce  it  would  put  a  grievous  burden  upon  the 
people  of  the  States  which  are  in.  default  in  payment.  It  needs  no  array  of  facts  to  show 
this.  Congress  in  one  if  not  both  branches  has  this  session  considered  the  proposition  of 
large  pecuniary  aid  to  these  people  to  help  them  place  and  keep  up  common  schools,  and 
the  Senate  has  passed  a  bill  therefor. 

If  there  be  need  for  that  succor,  there  would  be  harm  in  enforcing  this  charge.  It  is  to 
be  considered,  too,  that  while  taxes  are  seldom  looked  upon  with  favor,  this  would  be 
specially  objectionable.  The  purpose  for  which  it  was  laid  can  but  be  remembered  with  dis- 
taste. It  can  scarcely  be  expected  that  there  would  be  cheerful  aid  from  the  State  authori- 
ties in  the  enforcement  of  it.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  there  would  be  any.  Indeed 
it  would,  without  further  legislation,  have  to  be  enforced  by  the  machinery  provided  by 
the  Act  under  which  it  was  laid.  This  would  call  for  the  appointment  of  numerous  Fed- 
eral officials,  who  would  go  among  the  people  as  obnoxious  exactors.  I  think  it  must  be 
conceded  that  there  is,  and  ever  will  be,  great  reluctance  to  ever  setting  about  the  collec- 
tion of  this  tax.  That  it  never  had  great  favor,  is  shown  by  that  it  was  never  put  in  force 
but  one  year.  In  practical  effect,  then,  the  law  for  it  is  obsolete.  Why,  then,  should  there 
remain  this  unenforced  liability,  a  menace  to  the  people,  the  enforcement  of  which  is 
called  for  by  no  public  need,  nor  by  any  public  opinion  ? 

In  my  judgment,  the  people  and"  the  property  of  the  States  in  default  sjiould  be  relieved 
and  discharged  from  it. 

But  to  give  such  relief  and  discharge  would  be  to  put  an  equality  of  burden  upon  the 
States  which  paid,  unless  they  in  turn  were  in  some  way  relieved.  This  the  bill  proposes 
to  do  by  repaying  to  them  tlie  sums  received  from  them.  Assuming  that  the  tax  was 
lawful,  and  the  collection,  as  far  as  made,  was  warranted,  this,  apart  from  the  circum- 
stances, would  be  a  proposition  to  donate  to  the  States  surplus  moneys  of  the  United 
States — a  proposition  which  I  should  not  favor.  But,  as  connected  with  the  proposition 
to  discharge  from  onerous  and  needless  liability  one  portion  of  the  people,  it  takes  on  a 
different  character:  it  is  presented  as  an  adjustment  between  different  bodies  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  is  worthy  of  acceptation.  Indeed,  it  would  be  unjust  to  the  people  of  the  loyal 
States  to  release  the  people  of  the  once  insurrectionary  States  from  their  liability  without 
refunding  to  the  former  the  sums  paid  by  them,  and  there  are  analogies  in  the  legislation 
of  Congress.  Acts  have  been  passed  refunding  to  States  moneys  raised  by  them  for  the 
raising,  arming,  and  equipping  of  troops  for  the  Army  of  the  United  States  in  the  civil 
war,  and  for  making  other  refunds  of  like  character.  The  purpose  of  laying  this  direct 
tax  was  to  aid  in  the  ultimate  payment  of  the  extraordinary  expenses  of  the  Government 
caused  by  the  civil  war.  The  raising,  arming,  and  equipping  of  troops  by  the  States 
served  to  keep  down  those  expenses  for  the  time.  It  was  a  voluntary  act  upon  the  part 
of  the  States.  There  is  no  violation  of  principle  or  fundamental  law  in  repaying  to  the 
States  from  the  funds  of  the  United  States  the  cost  thereof.  The  purpose  and  effect  of 
this  bill  is  not  so  unlike  in  nature  to  that  as  not  also  to  be  freed  from  the  objections  to  a 
bald  distribution  among  the  States  of  what  are  called  the  surplus  revenues  of  the  United 
States. 

Under  the  peculiar  facts  of  the  case,  and  as  it  is  not  likely  to  become  a  precedent  for 
other  disposals  of  Federal  moneys,  my  judgment  is,  that  the  proposed  measure  is  a  good 
one.  It  IS  true  that  exactly  equal  justice  cannot  be  done  in  carrying  out  the  proposition 
of  the  bill.  Thus,  in  some  of  the  Southern  States  the  tax  was  to  some  extent  enforced. 
Tax  sales  were  made  of  pieces  of  real  estate  in  instances  for  less  than  the  value  of  them. 


163 

Only  the  surplus  of  purchase  money  over  the  tax  and  charges  has  been  available  to  the 
owners,  and  they  have  lost  the  difference  between  that  and  the  total  of  the  purchase 
money,  and  between  the  purchase  money  and  the  value. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  Northern  States,  the  payment  to  the 
"United  States  of  the  tax  was  assumed  by  the  State  Government,  which  collected  the 
amount  of  its  own  people  in  its  own  tax  levy.  Of  course,  in  the  changes  of  citizenship 
and  ownership  of  taxable  property,  while  a  repayment  into  the  State  Treasury  will  tend 
to  reduce  the  amount  of  State  tax,  it  will  not  inure  to  the  benefit  of  some  of  those  who 
in  1861  were  taxpayers.  But  these  failures  of  full  and  general  compensation  in  dealing 
with  transactions  so  long  past  must  ensue,  and  are  not  to  be  potentially  urged  against 
proposed  measures,  w^hich  in  the  main  do  work  equal  benefit. 

The  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  Hon.  William  Lawrence,  also  recom- 
mends the  passage  of  this  bill  in  the  following  terms: 

The  object  of  these  bills  is  to  remit,  so  far  as  not  collected  or  paid,  the  direct  taxes  laid 
upon  and  apportioned  to  the  States,  Territories,  and  District  of  Columbia  under  the 
Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  to  refund  to  such  States,  Territories,  and  District, 
respectively,  the  amount  of  such  taxes,  so  far  as  paid  in  any  mode  whatever. 

I  have  considered  the  subject  with  care,  and  now  have  the  honor  to  state  that,  in  my 
judgment,  it  is  alike  just,  j.udicious,  and  practicable  to  remit  all  such  taxes  not  yet  col- 
lected, to  refund  the  amounts  paid  in  any  form  by  any  State  or  Territory,  and  to  refund 
to  private  persons  or  their  legal  representatives  all  amounts  of  such  tax  by  them  paid,  or 
collected  by  sale  of  real  estate,  or  otherwise. 

In  view  of  the  status  of  this  tax  as  exhibited  by  these  facts,  your  com- 
mittee fully  concur  in  the  recommendations  herein  set  out.  In  those  cases 
in  which  the  money,  wherewith  any  State  stands  credited,  was  collected 
from  its  citizens,  the  amount  to  be  returned  to  said  State  under  this  bill 
should  be  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  those  citizens  from  whom  it  was  col- 
lected, or  their  legal  representatives-,  and  your  committee  recommends  that 
the  bill  be  amended  by  adding  the  following  at  the  end  thereof:  ^^ Provided^ 
that  where  the  sums,  or  any  part  thereof,  credited  to  any  State  or'  Terri- 
tory, has  been  collected  from  the  citizens  thereof,  either  directly  or  by  sale 
of  property,  such  amount  shall  be  regarded  as  received  by  said  States  in 
trust  for  the  benefit  of  those  of  its  citizens  from  whom  it  was  collected,  or 
their  legal  representatives." 

Your  committee  recommends  that  the  bill  thus  amended  do  pass. 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  2486,  Part  2. 

REPAYMENT  OF  THE  DIRECT  TAX. 

February  9,  1885 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on 
the  state  of  the  Union  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Warner,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  follow- 
as  the 

VIEWS   OF   THE   MINORITY. 
[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  6047.] 

Bill  No.  llO,  introduced  by  Mr.  Henley  of  California,  provides  for  the 
repayment  to  the  several  States  and  Territories  and  District  of  Columbia, 
respectively,  the  direct  tax  levied  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861. 

The  bill  (No.  6047)  introduced  by  Mr.  Price  of  Wisconsin,  provides,  in 
addition  to  the  repayment  of  the  several  sums  collected  under  said  Act,  for 
the  payment  of  the  fifteen  per  cent  allowed  to  the  States  and  Territories 
for  collecting  said  tax,  when  the  collection  was  made  by  States  or  Terri- 
tories. This  bill  also  provides  for  the  remission  of  taxes  apportioned,  but 
not  collected  or  paid.  This  report,  therefore,  is  made  to  cover  Bill  6047  as 
well  as  Bill  110. 

The  following  statement  shows  the  amount  of  direct  tax  apportioned  to 


164 

each  State  and  Territory,  the  amount  paid,  the  amount  on  which  fifteen 
per  cent  was  allowed,  and  the  balance  due  the  United  States  under  the  Act 
of  August  5,  1861,  and  the  States  and  Territories  from  which  it  is  due: 

Teeasury  Department,  March  31, 1884. 
Sir:  In  reply  to  your  communication  of  the  fourteenth  instant,  requesting  to  be  fur- 
nished with  a  statement  of  the  amount  of  taxes  apportioned  to  the  several  States  and 
Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  under  the  Acts  of  August  5, 1861,  and  June  7, 
1862,  and  the  amounts  still  standing  against  said  States  and  Territories  on  the  books  of 
the  Department,  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  a  statement  containing  the  infor- 
mation called  for. 
H.  R.  No.  110  inclosed  in  your  letter  is  returned  herewith. 
Very  respectfully, 

CHAS.  J.  rOLGER,  Secretary. 
Hon.  A.  J.  Warner,  of  Committee  on  Claims,  House  of  Representatives. 


Statement  of  the  condition  of  the  Direct  Tax  accounts  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  and 
the  District  of  Columbia,  mider  Acts  of  August  5, 1S61,  and  June  7, 1862. 


State  oe  Tekbitoby. 


Amount  Im- 
posed. 


Amount  Paid. 


Fifteen  per 
Cent  Allowance. 


Balance  Due 
United  States. 


Alabama 

Arkansas -.. 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Dakota 

Delaware 

District  of  Columbia 

Florida  i 

Georgia 

Hlinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky. 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland. ...- 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New  Hampshire 

New  Jersey 

New  Mexico 

New  York 

North  Carolina 

Ohio-. 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode  Island 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont. 

Virginia 

"West  Virginia 

Washington ■... 

Wisconsin 

South  Carolina 


$529,313  33 
261,886  00 
254,538  67 

22,905  33 

308,214  00 

3,241  33 

74,683  33 

49,537  33 

77,522  67 

584,367  33 

1,146,551  33 

904,875  33 

452,088  00 

71,743  33 
713,695  33 
385,886  67 
420,826  00 
436,823  33 
824,581  33 
501,763  33 
108,524  00 
413,084  67 
761,127  33 

19,312  00 

4,592  67 

218,406  67 

450,134  00 

62,648  00 

2,603,918  67 

576,194  67 

1,567,089  33 

35,140  67 

1,946,719  33 

116,963  67 

669,498  00 

355,106  67 

26,982  00 
211,068  00 

*  729,071  02 

*  208,479  65 

7,755  33 
519,688  67 
363,570  67 


$8,491  46 

184,082  18 

247,941  13 

1,516  89 

261,981  90 


*  74,683  33 

49,437  33 

43,529  81 

71,407  75 

974,568  63 

769,144  03 

384,274  80 

71,743  33 

608,G41  03 

268,515  12 

357,702  10 

371,299  83 

700,894  14 

426,498  83 

92,245  40 

74,742  57 

646,958  23 

+ 19,312  00 

4,592  67 

185,645  67 

382,614  83 

X  62,648  00 

2,213,330  86 

386,194  45 

1,332,025  93 

35,140  67 

1,654,711  43 

99,419  11 

287,722  06 

130,008  06 


179,407  80 
515,569  72 
181,306  93 
4,268  16 
429,196  68 
377,961  30 


$46,232  10 


171,982  70 

135,731  30 

67,813  20 


107,054  30 


63,123  90 
65,523  50 
123,687  19 
75,264  50 
16,278  60 


114,169  10 


32,761  00 
67,519  17 


390,587  81 
235,063"45 


292,007  90 
17,544  56 


31,660  20 
27,172' 72 


39,346  43 
14,390  63 


$520,821  27 

77,803  82 

6,597  54 

21,388  44 


3,241  33 


33,992  86 
512,959  58 


117,371  55 


338,342  10 


190,000  22 


281,775  94 

225,098  61 

26,982  00 


213,501  30 


3,487  17 
51,145  56 


*  Including  $4,350  50  on  compromise. 

*  Joint  resolution,  February  25,  authorized  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  transfer  $208,479  65  of  the  amount 
originally  appropriated  to  Virginia  to  the  State  of  West  Virginia. 

t  Nebraska  :  Amount  collected,  $4,281  60;  amount  allowed  by  Act  August  7, 1882  (22  Stat.,  p.  314),  $15,030  40; 
total,  $19,312. 

t  New  Mexico :  Amount  allowed  by  Act  of  July  1, 1862  (12  Stat.,  p.  489j,  $62,648. 
gOverpaid. 

Treasuey  Depabtment,  March  29, 1884. 


165 

To  aid  in  reaching  a  proper  understanding  of  the  questions  involved  in 
the  bills  under  consideration,  the  following  summary  of  the  Act  of  August 
5,  1861,  and  subsequent  Acts  relating  to  the  imposition  and  collection  of 
the  direct  tax,  is  here  given. 

Section  8  of  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  provided — 

That  a  direct  tax  of  twenty  millions  of  dollars  be  and  is  hereby  annually  laid  upon  the 
United  States,  and  the  same  shall  be  and  is  hereby  apportioned  to  the  States,  respectively, 
in  manner  following. 

Then  follow  the  sums  apportioned  to  the  several  States,  Territories,  and 
the  District  of  Columbia,  as  given  above. 
Section  9  of  the  same  Act  provided — 

That,  for  the  purpose  of  assessing  the  above  tax  and  collecting  the  same,  the  President 
of  the  United  States  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  to  divide,  respectively,  the  States  and 
Territories  of  the  United  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia  into  convenient  collection 
districts. 

Section  11  provided — 

That  each  of  the  assessors  shall  divide  his  district  into  a  convenient  number  of  assess- 
ment districts,  within  each  of  which  he  shall  appoint  one  respectable  freeholder  to  be 
assistant  assessor. 

Section  13  provided — 

That  the  said  direct  tax  laid  by  this  Act  shall  be  assessed  and  laid  on  the  value  of  all 
lands  and  lots  of  ground,  with  their  improvements  and  dwelling  houses,  which  several 
articles  subject  to  taxation  shall  be  enumerated  and  valued  by  the. respective  assessors  at 
the  rate  each  of  them  is  worth  in  money  on  the  first  day  of  April,  eighteen  hundred  and 
sixty-two. 

The  Act  also  provided  for  equalization  and  apportionment  to  be  made 
by  a  Board  of  Assessors. 

Section  33  provided  that  the  taxes  so  assessed  should  be  and  remain  a 
lien  during  two  years  after  the  time  it  should  become  due  and  payable. 

Section  35  provided  for  the  collection  of  the  taxes  by  distraint  and  sale 
of  the  goods,  chattels,  or  effects  of  the  persons  delinquent. 

Section  36  provided  for  the  sale  of  real  estate  when  personal  property 
was  not  found  to  satisfy  the  tax  and  cost. 

The  same  Act  imposed  an  income  tax  of  three  per  cent  on  all  incomes 
over  $800. 

Section  52  provided  that  if  any  State  was  in  rebellion  when  the  Act 
went  into  effect,  the  tax  might  be  collected  as  soon  as  the  authority  of  the 
United  States  was  reestablished. 

Section  53  provided  "that  any  State  or  Territory  and  the  District  of 
Columbia  may  lawfully  assume,  assess,  collect,  and  pay  into  the  Treasury 
of  the  United  States  the  direct  tax,  or  its  quota  thereof,  imposed  by  this 
Act  upon  the  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  in  its  own  way 
and  manner,  by  and  through  its  own  officers,  assessors,  and  collectors;" 
provided  notice  was  given  "to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States  on  or  before  the  second  Tuesday  of  February  next"  (1862),  in 
which  case  the  Act  allows  fifteen  per  cent  to  the  State  for  collecting. 

All  the  Northern  States,  except  Delaware,  accepted  the  collection  of  the 
direct  tax.  The  Act  of  February  25,  1867,  fixed  the  quota  to  West  Vir- 
ginia, and  provided  for  offsetting  the  tax  against  claims  of  the  State 
against  the  tJnited  States. 

Missouri,  by  the  Act  of  July  17,  1866,  was  authorized  to  offset  the  direct 


166 

tax  against  money  expended  in  arming  State  troops.  It  has  been  held 
that  without  the  authority  of  Congress  no  State  could  assume  the  tax  after 
February,  1862,  and  Secretary  McCulloch  declined  to  allow  Texas  and 
Georgia  to  pay  this  tax  to  the  United  States  without  further  authority  of 
law.     (See  letter  of  Secretary  McCulloch  to  the  Governor  of  Texas,  1866.) 

The  Act  of  June  7,  1862,  superseded  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  so  far  as 
related  to  States  in  rebellion.     (9  Wallace,  326;  14  Wallace,  553.) 

Section  1  of  this  Act  provided — 

That  when  in  any  State  or  Territory,  *  *  *  by  reason  of  insurrection  or  rebellion, 
the  civil  authority  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  obstructed  so  that  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Act  [of  August  5,  1861  *  *  *]  for  levying  and  collecting  the  direct  taxes 
therein  mentioned  cannot  be  peaceably  executed,  the  said  direct  taxes,  by  said  Act  appor- 
tioned among  the  several  States  and  Territories,  respectively,  shall  be  apportioned  and 
charged  in  each  State  and  Territory,  or  part  thereof,  wherein  the  civil  authority  is  thus 
obstructed,  upon  all  the  lands  or  lots  of  ground  situate  therein,  respectively,  except  such 
as  are  exempt  from  taxation  under  the  laws  of  said  State  or  of  the  United  States,  as  the 
said  lands  or  lots  of  ground  were  enumerated  and  valued  under  the  last  assessment  and 
valuation  thereof  made  under  the  authority  of  said  State  or  Territory  previous  to  the 
first  of  January,  Anno  Domini  eighteen  hundred  and  sixtv-one ;  and  each  and  every  par- 
cel of  the  said  lands,  according  to  said  valuation,  is  hereby  declared  to  be,  by  virtue  of 
this  Act,  charged  with  the  payment  of  so  much  of  the  whole  tax  laid  and  apportioned 
by  said  Act  upon  the  State  or 'Territory  wherein  the  same  is  respectively  situate,  as  shall 
bear  the  same  direct  proportion  to  the  whole  amount  of  the  direct  tax  apportioned  to 
said  State  or  Territory  as  the  value  of  said  parcels  of  land  shall  respectively  bear  to  the 
whole  valuation  of  the  real  estate  in  said  State  or  Territory,  according  to  the  said  assess- 
ment and  valuation  made  under  the  authority  of  the  same;  and  in  addition  thereto  a 
penalty  of  fifty  per  centum  of  said  tax  shall  be  charged  thereon. 

By  Section  2,  the  President  was  required  to  issue  his  proclamation  declar- 
ing in  what  States  and  parts  of  States  insurrection  existed. 

This  Act  also  provided  for  Commissioners,  and  by  Section  2,  if  the  tax 
was  not  paid — 

The  title  of,  in,  and  to  each  and  every  piece  or  parcel  of  land  upon  which  said  tax  has 
not  been  paid  as  above  provided,  shall  thereupon  become  forfeited  to  the  United  States, 
and,  upon  the  sale  hereinafter  provided  for,  shall  vest  in  the  United  States  or  in  the  pur- 
chasers at  such  sale,  in  fee  simple,  free  and  discharged  of  all  prior  liens,  incumbrances, 
right,  title,  and  claim  whatsoever. 

The  Commissioners  were  authorized  to  lease  the  lands,  etc. 

The  Act  of  July  1,  1862,  suspended  the  direct  tax  until  1865. 

The  Act  of  June  7,  1862,  was  modified  by  the  Acts  of  February  6,  1863, 
and  March  3,  1865. 

By  the  Act  of  July  28,  1866,  collection  of  the  direct  tax  in  the  States 
theretofore  declared  to  be  in  insurrection  was  suspended  until  January 
1,  1868. 

By  the  Act  of  July  23,  1868,  the  collection  of  the  direct  tax  in  the 
States  formerly  in  insurrection  was  suspended  until  January  1,  1869. 

The  Act  of  June  8,  1872,  provided  for  the  restoration  of  lands  held  by 
the  United  States  under  the  several  Acts  levying  direct  taxes,  upon  pay- 
ment of  taxes  and  cost. 

Since  the  suspension  of  the  collection  by  the  Act  of  July  23,  1868,  no 
further  taxes  have  been  collected. 

EARLIER    LEVIES    OF   A   DIRECT   TAX. 

The  first  direct  tax  levied  under  the  present  Constitution  was  in  1798; 
the  next  in  1813,  and  again  in  1815.  The  direct  tax  of  1798  was  for 
$2,000,000,  the  tax  of  1813  was  for  $3,000,000,  the  tax  of  1815  was  for 
$6,000,000,  the  tax  of  1861  was  for  $20,000,000.     By  each  of  these  Acts 


167 

the  tax  was  levied  "upon  the  United  States."  By  "United  States"  is 
meant,  of  course,  the  people  of  the  United  States.  Under  these  several 
Acts  the  tax  was  apportioned  among  the  several  States,  as  provided  in 
Clause  3,  Section  2,  Article  1,  and  Clause  4,  Section  9,  Article  1,  of  the  Con- 
stitution. The  Act  of  August  2,  1813,  apportioned  the  tax,  not  only  among 
the  several  States,  but  allotted  to  each  county  in  a  State  its  proportion 
according  to  population.  The  direct  tax  of  1798,  1813,  and  1815  was 
assessed  upon  " lands,  dwelling-houses,  and  slaves"  (in  apportioning  the 
taxes,  according  to  population,  five  slaves  were  counted  as  three  persons), 
and  was  made  a  lien  on  lands,  tenements,  and  slaves,  and,  if  not  paid', 
the  several  Acts  provided  for  the  collection  of  the  same  by  distress  and 
sale  of  personal  property,  and,  secondly,  by  sale  of  lands.  The  Act  of 
August  5,  1861,  levied  the  tax  on  "lands,  buildings,  etc."  Each  of  the 
Acts  referred  to  exempted  from  taxation  property  of  the  United  States, 
and  of  any  State.  Under  the  several  Acts,  too.  United  States  Assessors 
and  Collectors  were  provided  for,  and  provision  was  made  for  States  to 
assume  and  collect,  through  their  own  machinery,  and  pay  to  the  United 
States,  the  direct  tax  apportioned  to  them  respectively,  and  fifteen  per  cent 
has  been  uniformly  allowed  to  States  assuming  the  tax  for  collecting  it. 
The  several  Acts  referred  to  are,  therefore,  substantially  the  same  in  all 
their  important  features. 

The  clauses  in  the  Constitution  which  provide  for  a  direct  tax  are  as 
■follows: 

Article  1,  Section  2,  Clause  3: 

Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States  which 
may  be  included  within  this  Union,  according  to  their  respective  numbers. 

And  Clause  4,  of  Section  9,  Article  1: 

No  capitation  or  other  direct  tax  shall  be  laid,  unless  in  proportion  to  the  census  or 
enumeration  hereinbefore  directed  to  be  taken. 

Section  8,  Article  1,  of  the  Constitution,  provides  that — 

The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises    * 
*    *    but  all  duties,  imposts,  and  excises  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  United  States. 

Hence,  we  have  the  two  methods  of  laying  taxes:  the  one  under  the 
apportionment  clause,  according  to  population;  the  other  under  the  uni- 
formity clause,  which  requires  that  "  duties,  imposts,  and  excises  shall  be 
uniform  throughout  the  United  States." 

■  Direct  taxes  can  be  levied  only  under  the  apportionment  clause  of  the 
Constitution,  and  it  has  been  held  that  a  direct  tax  can  be  levied  only  upon 
land,  or  as  a  capitation  tax. 

In  the  case  of  Hylton  vs.  United  States,  3  Dallas,  171,  Chase,  J.,  says: 

I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  direct  taxes  contemplated  by  the  Constitution  are  only 
two,  to  wit:  a  capitation  or  poll  tax,  and  a  tax  on  land. 

And  in  the  same  case,  Patterson,  J.,  says: 

Whether  direct  taxes,  in  the  sense  of  the  Constitution,  comprehend  any  other  tax  than 
a  capitation  tax  and  a  tax  on  land,  is  a  questionable  point. 

Under  the  several  Acts  providing  for  a  direct  tax,  such  taxes  have  been 
levied  only  on  land  and  dwellings,  except  that  in  the  three  earlier  Acts 


168 

slaves  were  included.  From  the  debates  on  the  Act  of  1861,  it  is  clear 
that  the  opinion  prevailed  that  a  direct  tax  could  only  be  levied  on  real 
estate. 

Mr.  Stevens  said: 

A  direct  tax,  under  the  Constitution,  is  a  tax  upon  real  estate. 
Mr.  Bingham  said: 

The  uniform  construction  has  been  that  the  power  to  levy  and  apportion  direct  taxes 
could  be  rightfully  applied  only  to  lands  and  slaves. 

And  again: 

I  undertake  to  say  that  the  uniform  construction  of  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  is 
this— that  under  the  head  of  direct  taxation,  as  provided  for  in  the  Constitution,  to  be 
apportioned  among  the  several  States,  according  to  the  ratio  of  representation,  there  is 
nothing  to  be  taxed  except  land,  tenements,  and  slaves,  as  appurtenant  to  land,  unless  it 
be  a  direct  capitation  tax  on  the  person,  without  respect  to  his  property  or  to  his  income. 

In  the  Senate,  Mr.  Grimes  asked: 

What  is  the  direct  tax  on  ? 

Mr.  Collamer,    On  all  real  estate. 

Mr.  Grimes.    Not  on  personal  property  ? 

Mr.  Collamer.    No,  sir. 

******* 

Mr.  Grimes.  I  have  never  even  known  until  this  moment  that  there  was  no  tax  on 
personal  property  in  these  bills ;  but  that  all  this  is  to  go  on  real  estate.        *       *       * 

Mr.  Collamer.  I  stated  before,  and  I  state  now,  that  the  bill  is  essentially  the  same  in 
all  its  essential  features  with  the  bill  by  which  a  direct  tax  has  been  laid  four  times  by  the 
Government,  lived  under,  and  collected;  and  there  never  was  a  tax  on  personal  property 
by  this  Government. 

'Mr.  Simmons.  I  will  explain  to  the  Senator  from  Iowa,  that  it  is  competent  for  any 
State  to  assume  its  quota  of  this  direct  tax,  and  pay  it  into  the  Treasury  with  a  deduction 
of  fifteen  per  cent,  and  to  take  its  own  machinery  for  collecting  it.  If  they  tax  personal 
property  now  in  the  States,  they  can  tax  personal  property  to  get  the  money,  under  this 
bill,  into  their  Treasuries ;  so  that  it  will  leave  personal  property  as  the  States  now  leave  it. 

Not  only,  therefore,  has  it  been  the  practice  of  the  Government  in  the 
matter  of  direct  taxes,  to  levy  them  directly  upon  the  people  of  the  States, 
and  to  limit  them  to  real  estate  and  slaves,  but  it  has  in  every  case  provided 
the  machinery  for  collecting  directly  from  the  people  the  tax  so  levied. 
In  other  words,  the  Government  in  levying  and  collecting  a  direct  tax,  as 
in  all  other  taxes,  acts  directly  upon  the  people,  although  it  has  in  every 
direct  tax  levy  provided  for  the  assumption  and  payment  of  the  tax  by 
States.  Although  the  tax  must  have  been  apportioned  among  the  several 
States  and  Territories,  under  the  apportionment  clause  of  the  Constitution^ 
according  to  population,  nevertheless,  it  has  been  held  that  States  assuming 
to  pay  the  tax  might  themselves  make  the  levy  under  their  own  laws,  and 
collect  it  by  their  own  machinery,  and  this  has  been  the  practice  where 
States  have  assumed  the  collection  of  the  tax. 

Under  the  Articles  of  Confederation  Congress  had  no  power  to  levy  taxes^ 
but  made  requisition  upon  the  States  for  money.  The  difficulties  that  were 
encountered  during  and  after  the  close  of  the  war  of  the  Revolution  made 
manifest  to  the  framers  of  the  new  Constitution  that  the  possession  of  the 
power  of  taxation  was  necessary  to  the  existence  of  any  Government,  and 
the  power  to  levy  duties,  imposts,  and  excises — indirect  taxes — was  given 
to  the  General  Government  with  the  provision  that  these  taxes  should  be 
uniform  throughout  the  United  States.  The  power  to  levy  direct  taxes  was 
also  given  by  the  Constitution  to  the  General  Government,  but  this  tax 


169 

must  be  apportioned  according  to  population  as  determined  by  the  census; 
and  under  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  in  accordance  with  the 
uniform  practice  of  the  Government,  such  taxes,  as  has  been  shown,  have 
been  levied  only  on  land,  or  as  a  capitation  tax. 

Webster  clearly  states  the  power  of  the  Government  under  the  Constitu- 
tion in  the  matter  of  taxes.     He  says: 

The  Constitation  of  the  United  States  creates  direct  relations  between  this  Government 
and  individuals.  *  *  *  It  has  power,  also,  to  tax  individuals  in  any  mode  and  to  any 
extent.  *  *  *  The  Constitution  was  adopted  that  there  might  be  a  Government  which 
should  act  directly  on  individuals  without  borrowing  aid  from  the  State  governments. 
It  was  to  be  a  Government  with  direct  powers  to  make  laws  over  individuals  and  to 
lay  taxes  and  imposts  without  the  consent  of  the  States. 

On  the  other  hand  it  has  been  uniformly  held  that  the  General  Govern- 
ment cannot  levy  a  tax  on  a  State.  The  State,  as  a  corporation,  indeed, 
has  little  to  levy  a  tax  upon.  And  under  every  direct  tax  Act  the  property 
of  the  State  has  been  exempted  from  the  tax. 

The  State  itself  must  go  to  the  people  for  the  means  to  carry  on  its  own 
government.  The  United  States,  except  as  limited  by  the  Constitution, 
has  the  right  to  go  to  the  people  of  all  the  States  for  the  means  of  support- 
ing the  General  Government;  and  the  power  of  the  United  States  to  levy 
a  tax  upon  the  people  of  all  the  States  is  as  full  and  complete  as  the  power 
of  the  States  to  levy  taxes  upon  the  people  of  the  respective  States.  But 
there  is  no  constitutional  power  to  levy  a  tax  upon,  or  to  collect  a  tax  from, 
a  State  as  a  corporate  entity.  It  follows,  then,  that  a  State,  as  such,  cannot 
owe  taxes  to  the  General  Government,  and  that  taxes  levied  upon  the  peo- 
ple of  a  State  cannot  lie  as  a  debt  against  the  State.  Accordingly,  the  Act 
of  1861,  as  did  all  other  Acts  providing  for  direct  taxes,  contained  provis- 
ions, not  for  forcing  payment  of  the  tax  from  the  States  that  had  assumed 
it,  but  for  going  back  to  the  people  of  the  State  to  collect  it  from  them 
directly,  if  the  State,  after  having  assumed  the  tax,  should  fail  to  collect 
and  pay  it  over  to  the  United  States. 

What  foundation,  then,  is  there  for  the  claim  of  a  State  to  the  payment, 
or  repayment,  of  the  direct  tax  of  1861  ? 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  tax  was  not  upon  the  State;  that,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  property  of  the  State  was  expressly  exempted.  The  State,  as 
such,  paid  no  tax.  The  tax  was  levied  upon  that  class  of  persons  who,  in 
1861-62,  held  real  estate  in  the  several  States,  and  when  collected  by  the 
United  States  Government  was  collected  from  no  others.  The  tax  was 
constitutional  and  regular.  It  is  true  that  the  privilege  was  given  to  the 
States  to  collect  the  tax  and  pay  it  over  to  the  United  States,  in  which  case 
fifteen  per  cent  was  allowed  for  making  the  collection. 

It  must  be  upon  this  fact,  if  upon  anything,  that  the  claim  of  a  State  to 
a  repayment  of  the  tax  is  made  to  hinge.  No  other  basis  for  the  claim  of 
a  State,  as  a  State,  to  repayment,  can  possibly  exist. 

But,  if  the  right  to  a  repayment  of  the  tax  is  made  to  hinge  on  this  point, 
it  is  as  valid  for  a  repayment  of  the  tax  of  1798, 1813,  and  1815  as  for  that 
of  1861.  The  tax  in  each  case  was  levied  in  the  same  way,  and,  for  the 
most  part,  each  time  collected  by  the  States  through  their  own  machinery, 
for  which  fifteen  per  cent  was  allowed.  But  do  the  States,  because  they 
collected  the  tax  for  the  General  Government,  come  thereby  into  the  right 
to  claim  the  tax  as  their  own  ? 

Some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  speak  of  these  taxes  as  a  "forced  loan." 
But  they  who  use  such  language  use  it  without  comprehending  its  meaning. 
As  well  might  a  Sheriff  who  collects  taxes  for  the  Treasury  of  a  county  or 


170 

State,  for  which  he  is  allowed  a  percentage,  set  up  a  claim  to  the  taxes  as 
his  own,  and  demand  them  back  from  the  County  or  State  Treasurer  on 
the  plea  that  the  money  he  paid  over  was  a  "  forced  loan." 

Admitting,  as  it  must  be  admitted,  that  the  direct  tax  was  constitutional 
and  regular,  that  it  was  levied  upon  and  paid  by  the  people  of  the  States, 
either  directly  to  officers  of  the  United  States,  or  through  officers  of  the 
States,  it  would  seem  impossible  to  come  to  any  other  conclusion  than  that 
there  is  no  foundation  whatever  for  the  claim  of  a  State  to  the  repayment 
of  this  tax.  The  tax,  as  has  been  shown,  was  not  levied  upon  the  State — 
it  could  not  be — nor  could  it  be  collected  from  a  State.  It  was  a  tax  upon 
individuals  as  much  as  any  other  tax  is,  and  a  State  would  have  just  as 
good  reason  for  claiming  a  right  to  any  other  tax  paid  by  its  citizens, 
whether  a  direct  tax,  an  income  tax,  or  an  excise  tax  under  the  internal 
revenue  laws,  as  to  this  particular  tax. 

But  suppose  this  bill  should  pass,  out  of  what  fund  would  the  direct  tax 
be  repaid  to  the  States?  The  Government  has  no  resources  of  its  own.  It 
must  go  to  the  people  for  the  money.  It  might  levy  another  direct  tax,  or 
it  might  impose  some  indirect  tax;  but  in  the  end  the  people  must  pay  it. 
The  idea  that  there  is  a  great  surplus  in  the  Treasury,  out  of  which  it  can 
be  paid  without  any  tax,  is  not  sustained.  The  interest-bearing  debt  of 
the  Government  is  $1,200,000,000,  of  which  nearly  $200,000,000  is  payable 
at  the  option  of  the  Government,  and  if  money  in  the  Treasury  is  directed 
to  other  uses,  taxes  must  be  levied  to  pay  the  debt;  so  in  the  end  all  comes 
from  taxes.  No  State  could  therefore  expect  to  receive  more  than,  in  some 
way  or  other,  it  would  have  to  pay.  Besides,  it  costs  something  to  collect 
money  into  the  Treasury  and  pay  it  out  again.  The  Government  allowed 
fifteen  per  cent  to  such  States  as  assumed  the  collection  of  the  tax  for  col- 
lecting it;  and  it  is  proposed  to  pay  to  the  States  this  fifteen  per  cent  as 
well  as  the  amount  actually  received  by  the  Government.  To  collect  anew 
the  $20,000,000  of  direct  tax,  or  so  much  of  it  as  was  in  the  first  instance 
collected,  would  cost,  perhaps,  fifteen  per  cent  again,  and  by  the  time  it 
was  all  paid  out  the  actual  cost  of  collecting  the  money  and  adjusting  all 
the  claims  arising  under  it  would  hardly  be  less  than  twenty-five  per  cent. 
In  other  words,  the  direct  tax  can  only  be  paid  by  new  taxes,  to  collect  and 
pay  over  which  twenty-five  per  cent  must  be  paid  to  officials,  agents,  clerks, 
etc.  To  get,  therefore,  the  $1,500,000  direct  tax  paid  by  Ohio,  the  people 
of  Ohio  would  have  to  pay  anew,  in  some  way  or  other,  probably  not  less 
than  $2,000,000,  one  fourth  of  it  to  be  expended  in  working  the  machinery 
necessary  to  collect  and  pay  out  the  money,  especially  if  the  repayment  is 
to  extend  to  the  individual  citizens  who  in  the  first  instance  paid  it;  and 
what  would  be  true  of  Ohio  would  be  true  of  every  other  State.  They 
would  all  pay  in  the  end  $1  25  for  every  $1  that  would  reach  the  people 
again,  if  the  repayment  is  to  extend  to  the  people  who  in  the  first  instance 
paid  it,  as  it  plainly  should  if  repaid  at  all. 

The  next  question  is,  if  a  State  cannot  lay  claim  to  the  tax  levied  under 
the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  have  individuals,  who  paid  the  tax,  a  better 
right?  They  no  doubt  have  a  better  right,  for  the  State,  in  its  corporate 
capacity,  it  is  believed,  has  none  at  all.  The  first  question,  however,  that 
arises  is,  was  the  tax,  as  it  related  to  individuals,  constitutional?  Was  it 
lawfully  levied  and  collected?  That  it  was  not  an  equal  tax  is  admitted. 
No  direct  tax  levied  under  the  apportionment  clause  of  the  Constitution  is 
an  equal  tax,  but  it  is,  nevertheless,  one  of  the  modes  of  levying  taxes 
expressly  provided  for  by  the  Constitution.  That  this  ta;x  was  levied  under 
the  apportionment  clause,  instead  of  under  the  uniformity  clause,  does  not 
of  itself  give  those  who  paid  it  a  right  to  demand  it  back.     So  far  as  the 


171 

tax  was  paid  by  individuals  directly  to  officers  of  the  Government,  it  was 
paid  by  that  class  who  in  1861-'62  (or  when  it  was  collected)  owned  "lands 
and  dwellings  "  upon  which  the  tax  was  levied.  No  other  classes  paid  this 
tax,  and  certainly  no  other  class  can  have  any  claim  whatever  to  any  part 
of  it  now,  even  if  it  should  be  repaid.  And  for  this  reason  a  State  which 
left  the  tax  to  be  paid  by  its  individual  citizens  owning  property  liable  for 
the  tax  is  without  a  shadow  of  right  to  it.  And  in  this  connection  it  may 
be  stated  that  the  provision  in  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  not  having  been 
reenacted  in  the  Act  of  June  7,  1862,  the  direct  tax  could  not  after  the 
latter  date  be  assumed  by  a  State.  In  the  Georgia  case  the  First  Comp- 
troller, Mr.  A.  G.  Porter,  decided  that  the  citizens  of  the  State  owed  the  tax 
to  the  Government,  and  not  the  State,  and  consequently  that  money  due 
by  the  United  States  to  the  State  of  Georgia  could  not  be  credited  "  as  upon 
a  debt  owing  by  that  State  to  the  United  States." 

The  hardship  in  the  collectioji  of  this  tax  comes  in  where  lands  were 
taken  possession  of  in  insurrectionary  States  and  sold.  In  many  cases  the 
lands  sold  far  below  their  ordinary  value,  their  owners  being  away  from 
them,  or  under  the  circumstances  not  possessing  at  the  time  the  means  of 
paying  the  taxes  or  of  subsequently  redeeming  the  lands. 

In  some  States  a  portion  only  of  the  taxes  was  collected  in  this  way,  the 
collection  being  generally  limited  to  districts  within  the  military  lines  of 
the  United  States. 

The  injustice  here  consists  in  the  taxes  having  been  collected  from  one 
part  of  the  people,  and  not  from  all  alike.  But,  after  all,  this  is  one  of 
the  exigencies  of  the  war,  and,  like  a  thousand  other  things,  could  not  be 
controlled  at  the  time,  and  can  not  now  be  remedied  without  creating  new 
wrongs.  It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  the  claim  to  repayment  of  the 
taxes  to  the  individuals  who  paid  them  rests  upon  a  much  better  founda- 
tion than  the  claim  of  a  State.  But  the  difficulty  lies  in  the  impractica- 
bility of  repayment  to  individuals  who  might  be  entitled  to  it.  While 
this  might  not  be  so  difficult  in  those  States  where  individuals  paid  the 
tax  directly  to  the  United  States  Commissioners,  or  where  lands  were  sold 
for  the  tax  in  other  States,  where  the  tax  was  collected  by  the  State 
through  its  own  machinery,  the  repayment  to  individuals  in  the  propor- 
tions it  was  paid  by  them  would  be  extremely  difficult  if  not  impossible, 
and  certainly  would  involve  a  vast  deal  of  labor.  There  can  be  no  ques- 
tion as  to  the  right  of  individual  owners  of  lands  sold  for  the  direct  tax  to 
a  repayment  of  the  excess  of  sales  or  excess  of  proceeds  of  resales  over 
and  abov^  taxes,  costs,  etc.  Thus  the  Government  realized  on  resales  of 
land  bought  in  for  taxes  in  the  State  of  South  Carolina  some  $300,000  over 
and  above  taxes  and  costs.  As  the  object  of  these  purchases  and  sales  was 
to  get  the  tax,  and  not  confiscation,  it  is  difficult  to  find  a  reason  for  not 
paying  the  surplus  back  to  the  original  owners  of  these  lands. 

The  only  question  that  remains  to  be  considered  is,  shall  the  Govern- 
ment proceed  to  collect  the  tax  in  States  where  the  full  tax  has  not  been 
collected?  Under  the  original  Act  of  June  5,  1861,  the  tax  was  made  a 
lien  upon  lands  and  buildings  upon  which  it  was  assessed  for  two  years, 
and  it  is  assumed  that  if  the  Government  should  proceed  now  to  collect 
the  tax,  it  could  collect  it  only  from  those  owning  the  property  liable  for 
the  tax  at  the  time  it  was  levied,  or  before  the  lien  upon  it  expired.  The 
Government  having  failed  to  collect  the  tax  at  the  time,  no  matter  for 
what  reason,  it  cannot  proceed  now  to  collect  it  from  any  other  class  than 
that  particular  class  upon  whom  the  tax  was  originally  laid.  A  new 
apportionment  cannot  be  made.  The  census  has  been  twice  taken  since 
levying  this  tax,  and  a  new  apportionment  would  necessarily  be  very  dif- 


172 

ferent  from  the  apportionment  under  the  Act  of  1861.  Consequently  the 
collection  of  this  tax  now  has  become  altogether  impracticable,  and,  in 
part  at  least,  impossible.  Would  it  not  be  as  well,  then,  to  recognize  the 
fact  that  this  country  from  1861  to  1865  was  in  a  state  of  war,  and  that  in 
parts  of  the  States  taxes  of  any  kind  were  not  and  could  not  be  collected; 
that  during  this  time  neither  the  direct  tax  nor  the  income  tax  nor  any 
other  United  States  tax  was  collected,  and  could  not  be  collected  in  a  large 
part  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States;  that  it  is  impossible  at  this  late 
day  to  go  back  over  all  these  accounts  and  open  them  up  anew,  and  ex- 
pect to  mete  out  even-handed  justice  the  same  as  though  there  had  been 
no  war  ?  We  cannot  now  collect  the  income  tax  or  the  internal  revenue 
tax  that  was  not  paid  in  those  years,  and  these  taxes  were  many  times 
larger  than  the  direct  tax.  We  could  not  now  collect  any  of  these  taxes 
that  were  not  paid,  and  we  could  not  collect  the  full  direct  tax  if  it  were 
undertaken. 

It  is  therefore  recommended  that  all  direct  tax  laws  be  repealed,  and 
that  the  bills  referred  to  be  laid  on  the  table. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  refer  here  to  a  suggestion  made  by  the  late 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  Folger,  in  a  communication  printed  as  a 
part  of  this  report,  that  in  the  adjustment  of  the  direct  tax  of  1861  an 
account  should  be  taken  of  the  surplus  distributed  under  the  law  of  1836. 
The  fourth  installment  of  the  sum  which  the  Act  of  1836  authorized  to  be 
distributed  among  the  States  accepting  it  was  never  paid,  and  claims  have 
been  recently  preferred  by  certain  States  for  this  fourth  installment.  It  is 
claimed  on  the  one  hand  that  the  acceptance  by  the  States  which  shared 
in  the  distribution  under  the  Act  of  1836  amounted  to  a  contract  which 
bound  the  Government  to  pay  over  the  full  sum  of  $37,468,859  embraced 
in  the  Act.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  one  condition  of  the  Act  was  "  that 
when  said  money  or  any  part  thereof  shall  be  wanted  by  the  said  Secre- 
tary to  meet  appropriations  by  law,  the  same  shall  be  called  for,  in  ratable 
proportions,  within  one  year,  as  nearly  as  conveniently  may  be,  from  the 
different  States  with  which  the  same  is  deposited." 

^  This  surplus,  distributed  under  the  Act  of  1836,  was  shared  in  by  twenty- 
six  States.  It  had  been  collected  from  the  people  of  these  States.  There 
was  no  great  inequality  probably  in  the  payment  or  distribution  of  this 
surplus,  but  now  to  collect  the  nine  or  ten  millions  claimed  to  be  due  to 
the  twenty-six  States  from  the  people  of  the  whole  country  and  pay  it  over 
to  those  States  would  be  manifestly  unjust.  If  it  be  as  important  as  it  is 
claimed  to  be  to  square  the  accounts  between  these  twenty-six  States  and 
the  United  States,  it  is  suggested  that  an  easy  and  just  way  to  do  it  would 
be  to  call  in  the  first  installment  and  with  that  pay  the  fourth  installment. 
There  can  surely  be  no  question  as  to  the  right  of  the  Government  to  call 
for  any  or  all  of  the  distributed  surplus. 

The  barest  consideration  of  these  claims  shows  how  difficult  it  is  to  go 
back  and  open  up  these  accounts  with  a  view  to  a  more  equitable  settle- 
ment than  has  been  made.  It  is  a  question  whether  in  attempting  it 
greater  injustice  would  not  be  done  than  would  exist  if  they  were  let 
alone. 

In  order  to  show  the  condition  of  the  claims  arising  under  the  Act  of 
1836,  the  opinion  of  Justice  Harlan  on  petition  of  Virginia  for  mandamus 
(Supreme  Court,  October  term,  1883)  is  printed  in  connection  with  the 
communication  of  the  late  Secretary. 

Communications  from  the  First  Comptroller,  Hon.  William  Lawrence, 
and  from  the  late  Secretary,  the  Hon.  Charles  J.  Folger,  containing  certain 
recommendations,  are  herewith  submitted  as  a  part  of  this  report,  and  also 


173 

the  opinion  of  Mr.  Justice  Harlan  on  the  surplus  distributed  under  the 
law  of  1836.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  recommendations  of  the  late  Secre- 
tary and  of  the  First  Comptroller  are  not  altogether  in  harmony  with  the 
recommendations  here  submitted. 

A.  J.  WARNER. 

BENTON  McMillan. 

CHAS.  B.  LORE. 

Treasury  Department,  June  14, 1884. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  of  acknowledging  receipt  from  you  of  H.  K  Bill  No.  110,  entitled 
*'  A  Bill  to  adjust  certain  accounts  between  the  tJnited  States  and  the  several  States  and 
Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia." 

This  bill  relates  to  the  direct  tax  of  $20,000,000  annually  laid  upon  the  United  States, 
and  apportioned  to  the  States,  the  Territories,  and  the  District  of  Columbia  under  the 
Act  of  Congress  passed  August  5,  1861  (12  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  294).  The  purpose  of  the  bill 
is  to  relieve  and  discharge  from  further  liability  for  that  tax  those  States  and  Territories 
which  have  not  paid  the  portion  thereof  apportioned  to  them  respectively,  and  to  repay, 
out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  those  States  and  Terri- 
tories which  have  paid  any  portion,  the  sums  by  them  respectively  paid.  Though  by  the 
Act  above  cited  this  tax  was  made  an  annual  one,  an  attempt  to  collect  it  for  more  than 
one  year  has  never  been  made.  By  that  attempt  there  were  collected  about  $15,000,000, 
principally  from  the  States  which  did  not  seek  to  go  out  of  the  Union,  and  there  were 
left  uncollected  about  $5,000,000,  principally  in  the  States  which  did  seek  to  go  out  of  the 
Union.  The  sum  uncollected  remains  a  charge  against  those  States,  and  for  the  purposes 
of  this  letter  it  may  be  assumed  that  it  is  a  valid  and  enforceable  charge.  It  is  plain, 
however,  that  no  legislator  at  this  day  would  propose  to  raise  revenue  by  a  tax  of  that 
kind.  There  is  no  need  of  resorting  to  such  method.  The  revenues  of  the  Government, 
irom  sources  not  so  extraordinary,  and  collectible  by  means  and  appliances  not  so  objec- 
tionable as  those  involved  therein,  are  ample  for  its  purposes.  They  are,  indeed,  super- 
abundant, and  the  concern  of  statesmen  is  rather  how  they  may  be  reduced  than  how 
they  may  be  increased.  The  Government,  then,  needs  not  the  money  to  be  got  by  enforc- 
ing this  tax.  At  the  same  time  it  is  plain  that  to  enforce  it  would  put  a  grievous  burden 
•upon  the  people  of  the  States  which  are  in  default  in  payment.  It  needs  no  array  of  facts 
to  show  this.  Congress,  in  one,  if  not  both  branches,  has  this  session  considered  the 
proposition  of  large  pecuniary  aid  to  these  people,  to  help  them  place  and  keep  up  com- 
mon schools,  and  the  Senate  has  passed  a  bill  therefor.  If  there  be  need  for  that  succor, 
there  would  be  harm  in  enforcing'this  charge.  It  is  to  be  considered,  too,  that  while  taxes 
are  seldom  looked  upon  with  favor,  this  would  be  specially  objectionable.  The  purpose 
for  which  it  was  laid  can  but  be  remembered  with  distaste.  It  can  scarcely  be  expected 
that  there  would  be  cheerful  aid  from  the  State  authorities  in  the  enforcement  of  it.  It 
may  be  doubted  whether  there  would  be  any.  Indeed,  it  would,  without  further  legisla- 
tion, have  to  be  enforced  by  the  machinery  provided  by  the  Act  under  which  it  was  laid. 
This  would  call  for  the  appointment  of  numerous  Federal  officials,  who  would  go  among 
the  people  as  obnoxious  exactors.  I  think  it  must  be  conceded  that  there  is,  and  ever  will 
be,  great  reluctance  to  ever  setting  about  the  collection  of  this  tax.  That  it  never  had 
great  favor  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  it  was  never  put  in  force  but  one  year.  In  practical 
effect,  then,  the  law  for  it  is  obsolete.  Why,  then,  should  there  remain  this  unenforced 
liability,  a  menace  to  the  people,  the  enforcement  of  which  is  called  for  by  no  public  need, 
nor  by  any  public  opinion  ? 

In  my  judgment,  the  people  and  the  property  of  the  States  in  default  should  be  relieved 
and  discharged  from  it. 

But  to  give  such  relief  and  discharge  would  be  to  put  an  inequality  of  burden  upon 
the  States  which  paid,  unless  they  in  turn  were  in  some  way  relieved.  This  the  bill 
proposes  to  do  by  repaying  to  them  the  sums  received  from  them.  Assuming  that  the 
tax  was  lawful,  and  the  collection  as  far  as  made  was  warranted,  this,  apart  from  the 
circumstances,  would  be  a  proposition  to  donate  to  the  State  surplus  moneys  of  the 
United  States,  a  proposition  which  I  should  not  favor.  But  as  connected  with  the  propo- 
sition to  discharge  from  onerous  and  needless  liability  one  portion  of  the  people,  it  takes 
on  a  different  character;  it  is  presented  as  an  adjustment  between  different  bodies  of  the 
people,  and  is  worthy  of  acceptation.  Indeed,  it  would  be  unjust  to  the  people  of  the 
loyal  States  to  release  the  people  of  the  once  insurrectionarj^  States  from  their  liability, 
without  refunding  to  the  former  the  sums  paid  by  them,  and  there  are  analogies  in  the 
legislation  of  Congress.  Acts  have  been  passed,  refunding  to  States  moneys  raised  by 
them  for  the  raising,  arming,  and  equipping  of  troops  for  the  army  of  the  Itnited  States 
in  the  civil  war;  and  for  making  other  refunds  of  like  character.  The  purpose  of  laying 
this  direct  tax  was  to  aid  in  the  ultimate  payment  of  the  extraordinary  expenses  of  the 
Government  caused  by  the  civil  war.  The  raising,  arming,  and  equipping  of  troops  by 
the  States  served  to  keep  down  those  expenses  for  the  time.  It  was  a  voluntary  act  upon 
the  part  of  the  States.  There  is  no  violation  of  principle  or  fundamental  law  in  repaying 
to  the  States  from  the  funds  of  the  United  States  the  cost  thereof.  The  purpose  and 
effect  of  this  bill  is  not  so  unlike  in  nature  to  that,  as  not  also  to  be  freed  from  the  objec- 


•  174 

tions  to  a  bald  distribution  among  the  States  of  what  are  called  the  surplus  revenues  of 
the  United  States. 

Under  the  peculiar  facts  of  the  case,  and  as  it  is  not  likelj^  to  become  a  precedent  for 
other  disposals  of  Federal  moneys,  my  judgment  is  that  the  proposed  measure  is  a  good 
one.  It  is  true  that  exactly  equal  justice  cannot  be  done  in  carrying  out  the  proposition 
of  the  bill.  Thus,  in  some  of  the  Southern  States,  the  tax  was  to  some  extent  enforced. 
Tax  sales  were  made  of  pieces  of  real  estate,  in  instances,  for  less  than  the  value  of  them. 
Only  the  surplus  of  purchase  money  over  the  tax  and  charges  has  been  available  to  the 
owners,  and  they  have  lost  the  difference  between  that  and  the  total  of  the  purchase 
money,  and  between  the  purchase  money  and  the  real  value.  On  the  other  hand,  in  most,, 
if  not  all,  of  the  Jforthern  States,  the  payment  to  the  United  States  of  the  tax  was 
assumed  by  the  State  Government,  which  collected  the  amount  of  its  own  people  in  its  own 
tax  levy.  Oi  course,  in  the  changes  of  citizenship  and  of  ownership  of  taxable  property, 
while  a  repayment  into  the  State  Treasury  will  tend  to  reduce  the  amount  of  State  tax,  it 
will  not  enure  to  the  benefit  of  some  of  those  who,  in  1861,  were  taxpayers.  But  these 
failures  of  full  and  general  compensation  in  dealing  with  transactions  so  long  past  must 
ensue,  and  are  not  to  be  potentially  urged  against  proposed  measures  which,  in  the  main^ 
do  work  equal  benefit. 

It  is  worthy  of  consideration,  too,  whether  this  is  not  a  suitable  occasion  to  deal  with 
the  matter  of  the  Federal  surplus  moneys  deposited,  or  to  be  deposited,  with  the  States 
by  the  Act  of  1836  (5  Stat,  at  Large,  55-207).  Why  may  not  those  States  which  made  pay- 
ment of  their  portion  of  the  direct  tax  under  the  Act  of  1861  be  debited  in  the  settlement 
proposed  by  the  bill  before  your  committee  with  the  amount  of  that  deposit  made  with 
them,  and  be  paid  the  balance,  and  thus  the  liability  to  the  United  States  under  the 
Deposit  Act  be  extinguished  ?  Thus  the  anomalous  "state  of  things  existing  under  the 
last  named  Act  would  be  ended  so  far  as  those  States  are  concerned. 

It  is  true  that  some  of  the  States,  as  Virginia  and  Arkansas,  for  instance,  may  not  have 
received  their  full  proportion  of  the  Deposit  Fund  of  1836,  and  it  is  true  that  in  remitting 
the  liability  of  the  States  to  repay  the  deposit  with  them  there  will,  as  to  some  of  them, 
be  no  claim  for  a  refund  under  this  bill  against  which  that  liability  may  be  set  off,  and 
that  therefore  complete  equality  of  benefit  and  burden  may  not' be  realized.  It  is  well  to' 
consider,  however,  whether,  inasmuch  as  it  is  desirable  that  the  relation  of  creditor  and 
debtor  between  the  United  States  and  the  States  be  closed,  it  should  not  be  done  at  this 
favorable  opportunity,  though  at  the  sacrifice  of  complete  equality.  In  connection  here- 
with, I  refer  to  the  fifty-third  section  of  the  Direct  Tax  Act  (see  12  Stat,  at  Large,  pp.  311,^ 
312),  and  suggest  that  there  may  be  instances  in  which  the  principal  of  that  section  may 
be  applied. 

I  also  inclose  herewith  a  communication  to  me  from  the  First  Comptroller  of  the 
Treasury,  which  presents  views  in  accord  with  some  of  those  expressed  by  me,  and  gives 
tables  of  value,  and  a  draft  of  a  bill;  and  to  this  communication  I  ask  attention. 
Very  respectfully, 

CHAS.  J.  FOLGER,  Secretary. 

Hon.  A.  J.  Warner,  Chairman  of  Sub-Committee  of  Committee  on  Claims,  House  of 
Representatives. 

Treasury  Department,  First  Comptroller's  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  May  2,  1884.         j 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  I  have  received  a  letter  from  the  Honorable  Wade 
Hampton,  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  dated  twenty-fourth  ultimo,  transmitting 
to  me  a  copy  of  Senate  Bill  No.  795,  "  to  adjust  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States 
and  the  several  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia,"  and  asking  me  to 

five  my  views  on  it.  I  have  also  received  a  letter,  dated  twenty-fifth  ultimo,  from  the 
[on.  Barclay  Henley,  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  transmitting  a  copy  of  House 
Bill  No.  110,  which  is  in  form  similar  to  said  Senat'e  bill.  This  latter  letter  is  addressed 
to  you  and  to  me  jointly,  and  asks  "to  be  furnished  with  the  views"  of  the  Treasury 
Department,  and  with  mine  also  in  relation  thereto. 

The  object  of  these  bills  is  to  remit,  so  far  as  not  collected  or  paid,  the  direct  taxes  laid 
upon  and  apportioned  to  the  States,  Territories,  and  District  of  Columbia,  under  the 
Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  to  refund  to  such  States,  Territories,  and  District, 
respectively,  the  amount  of  such  taxes  so  far  as  paid  in  any  mode  whatever. 

I  have  considered  this  subject  with  care,  and  now  have  the  honor  to  state  that,  in  my 
judgment,  it  is  alike  just,  judicious,  and  practicable  to  remit  all  such  taxes  not  yet  col- 
lected, to  refund  the  amounts  paid  in  any  form  by  any  State  or  Territory,  and  to  refund 
to  private  persons,  or  their  legal  representatives,  all  amounts  of  such  tax  by  them  paid, 
or  collected  by  sale  of  real  estate  or  otherwise.  I  have  accordingly  prepared  the  draft  of 
a  bill  to  effect  these  objects,  which  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  for  your  consideration. 

I  will  briefly  state  some  of  the  reasons  in  support  of  the  views  above  presented :  The 
amounts  apportioned  to  States  which  have  not  in  any  form  paid,  or  been  credited  with 
any  sum,  as  the  accounts  stand  in  this  office,  are  as  follows : 


175 

Alabama $529,313  33 

Arkansas ..- 261,886  00 

Dakota... 3,241  33 

Florida 77,522  67 

Georgia 584,367  33 

Louisiana 385,886  67 

Mississippi 413,084  67 

New  Mexico 62,648  00 

North  Carolina ..-.-  576,194  67 

South  Carolina .- 363,570  67 

Tennessee -- - 669,498  00 

Texas 355,106  67 

Utah 26,982  00 

$4,309,302  01 

Virginia $937,550  67 

Less 208,479  65 

729,071  02 

Total $5,038,373  03 

These  are  the  sums  charged  against  the  States  and  Territories  mentioned,  all  of  which, 
as  stated,  appear  by  the  records  of  this  office  as  unpaid.  It  is  proper  to  say,  however,  as 
to  all  these,  except  Alabama,  Dakota,  New  Mexico,  and  Utah,  that  payments  for  each  have 
been  made  into  the  Treasury  by  direct  tax  Commissioners,  which  Have  not  been  settled 
in  this  office.  Most  of  these  payments  are  shown  in  the  letter  of  the  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Revenue,  appended  to  the  Georgia  case  (4  Lawrence,  Compt.  Dec,  380).  So,  to  a 
limited  extent,  other  payments  have  been  made,  but  not  yet  credited. 

I.  As  to  the  amounts  thus  apportioned,  and  which  remain  unpaid,  only  three  things 
can  be  done.  (1)  They  can  be  paid  by  an  increase  of  taxes  in  these  States,  if  they  should 
respectively  assume  payment,  or  (2)  they  can  be  paid  by  enforcing  collection  by  Act  of 
Congress  of  assessments  against  the  real  estate  of  private  owners  thereof,  or  (3)  they  can 
be  left  uncollected. 

(1)  It  is  certainly  well  understood  that  the  burdens  of  taxation,  under  State  and  local 
authority  in  these  States,  is  such  that  it  cannot  be  desirable  to  increase  it.  It  is  not  at  all 
certain  that  these  States  would  increase  and  collect  taxes  for  this  purpose.  With  the 
general  feeling  which  now  so  fortunately  prevails  in  favor  of  Congressional  aid  to  States 
to  promote  common  school  education,  it  is  quite  evident  that  Congress  will  not  require 
any  such  taxes  to  be  levied.  There  is  no  necessity  now  for  requiring  the  payment  of 
these  amounts.  The  revenues  of  the  Government  are  more  than  abundant;  and  it  is  not 
at  all  probable  that  conditions  will  ever  exist  to  require  the  payment  of  these  amounts. 

(2)  Th6  same  reasons  operate  against  enforced  collections  under  the  authority  of  an 
Act  of  Congress.  In  fact,  it  is  believed  that  there  is  no  desire  now  on  the  part  of  any 
class  of  citizens  that  the  payment  of  this  tax  should  be  enforced.  This,  in  part,  grows 
out  of  the  consideration  having  almost  universal  assent,  that  direct  taxes  are  unequal, 
and  hence  unjust.  The  apportionment  against* States  is  made  on  the  basis  of  population, 
and  not  wealth,  and  is,  hence,  unequal  as  between  States.  When  collection  is  enforced 
by  authority  of  Congress  against  real  estate,  the  inequality  and  injustice  are  aggravated, 
because  the  burden  is  imposed  on  a  species  of  property  generally  less  productive  of  profit 
than  any  other,  and  hence  least  able  to  bear  it,  and  chattel  wealth,  including  a  vast 
amount  of  corporate  resources,  constituting  in  all  a  large  proportion  of  the  aggregate  of 
all  forms  of  property,  totally  escapes  from  all  burden,  while  requiring  and  receiving  more 
of  the  protecting  care  of  Government,  and  hence  reaping  benefits  at  the  expense  of  the 
owners  of  real  estate.  The  objectionable  character  of  direct  taxes  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  they  have  been  authorized  but  three  times  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution; 
and  although  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861  (12  Stat.,  294),  provided  "that  a  direct  tax  of 
twenty  millions  of  dollars  be  and  is  annually  laid  upon  the  United  States,"  yet  the  pur- 
pose to  collect  ail  beyond  one  year  has  been  abandoned.  It  may,  then,  be  assumed  that 
the  direct  taxes  collected  were  unequal  and  unjust,  as  between  the  States,  and  still  more 
so  among  the  property  owners  of  the  United  States. 

A  wrong  having  thus  been  done,  it  should  be  repaired  by  remitting  the  taxes  not  col- 
lected, and  refunding  those  collected,  upon  the  same  principle  sanctioned  in  many  statutes 
of  remitting  taxes  improperly  assessed,  and  of  refunding  those  which  have  been  improp- 
erly collected. 

(3)  The  result  will  undoubtedly  be  that  the  amounts  of  direct  tax  not  yet  paid  will 
remain  unpaid. 

II.  In  view  of  all  this,  the  inquiry  is  now  presented,  whether  anything,  and,  if  so,  what 
should  be  done  as  to  (1)  the  States  which  have  assumed  and  paid  their  respective  quotas 
of  the  direct  tax,  and  (2)  as  to  those  in  which  sums  allowed  by  accounting  officers  in  their 
favor,  respectively,  have  been  withheld  and  credited  on  account  of  the  quota  of  such 
States. 

It  seems  to  me  advisable  to  refund  to  such  States  the  amount  so  assumed  and  paid  or 
withheld.  This  view  is  supported  by  all  the  considerations  already  mentioned,  which 
show  the  inexpediency  of  enforcing  payment  in  the  States  the  quotas  of  which  have  not 
been  paid.  The  policy  of  refunding  is 'supported  by  the  manifest  injustice  of  retaining 
money  collected  as  direct  taxes  from  some  States  from  which  others  are  exempt.   Equality 


176 


of  burdens,  as  among  the  States,  in  those  cases  in  which  they  are  imposed  in  fixed  pro- 
portions directly  upon  the  real  estate  therein,  is  simple  justice.  In  such  cases  inequality 
is  injustice.  Assuming  that  no  more  of  the  direct  tax  should  be  collected,  the  only  mode 
of  securing  equality  is  to  refund  the  direct  taxes  collected.  If  this  refund  should  be  made, 
States  would  receive  money,  substantially,  as  follows : 


States  and  Teebitories. 

Amount. 

States  and  Territories. 

Amount. 

Alabama i 

$8,491  46 

184,082  18 

247,941  13 

1,516  89 

308,214  00 

74,683  33 

49,437  33 

43,529  81 

71,407  75 

1,146,551  33 

904,875  33 

452,088  00 

71,743  33 

713,695  33 

268,615  12 

420,826  00 

436,823  33 

824,581  33 

501,763  33 

108,524  00 

74,742  00 

Missouri 

$761,127  33 

19,312  00 

4,592  67 

218,406  67 

450,134  00 

62,648  00 

2,603,918  67 

386,194  45 

1.567,089  33 

35,140  67 

1,946,719  33 

116,963  67 

387,722  06 

130,008  06 

211,088  00 

515,569  22 

208,479  65 

4,268  16 

468,543  11 

377,961  30 

Arkansas 

Nebraska. 

California 

Nevada 

Colorado 

New  Hampshire 

New  Jersey 

New  Mexico 

Connecticut 

Delaware           

District  of  Columbia 

New  York  . 

Florida 

North  Carolina 

Ohio 

Georgia 

lUi  nois 

Oregon 

Indiana . 

Pennsylvania 

Iowa         -   - 

Rhode  Island 

Kansas 

Tennessee. 

Texas 

Kentucky ._ 

Louisiana 

Vermont 

Maine.-      _  .        .  .     _ 

Virginia 

Maryland 

West  Virginia   

Massachusetts 

Washington  Territory. 

Wisconsin 

Michigan _ 

Minnesota    

South  Carolina 

Mississippi 

Tables  showing  the  condition  of  the  direct  tax  accounts  with  several  States  and  Terri- 
tories will  be  found  appended  to  the  Georgia  case  (4  Lawrence,  Compt.  Dec,  376,  380).  The 
first  table  shows  the  accounts  as  they  stand  adjusted  in  this  office.  The  second  table 
shows  some  payments  not  yet  adjusted  in  this  office,  and  hence  the  apparent  discrepancy 
between  the  tables.  There  are  still  other  credits,  to  a  limited  extent,  as  to  some  States, 
not  shown  by  either  of  these  tables. 

III.  In  some  of  the  States  the  Tax  Commissioners,  under  the  direct  tax  of  June  7,  1862 
(12  Stat.,  422),  sold  the  real  estate  of  many  private  owners,  and  thus  collected  in  part  the 
quota  of  tax  apportioned  to  such  States,  respectively.  The  Senate  and  House  bills  sub- 
mitted for  my  consideration  propose  to  refund  directly  to  the  State  the  taxes  thus  collected 
in  each  State.  It  is  submitted  that  it  would  seem  more  equitable  and  just  to  refund 
directly  to  the  private  parties  who  paid  such  taxes,  or  whose  lands  were  sold  to  enforce 
payment.  This  is  the  policy  established  as  to  the  "surplus  proceeds"  arising  from  sales, 
"after  satisfying  the  tax,  costs,  charges,  and  commissions."  Act  August  5, 1861  (12  Stat., 
304,  Sec.  36);  Act  June  7, 1862  (12  Stat.,  422);  Act  June  8,  1872  (17  Stat.,  382);  Act  March  3, 
1883  (22  Stat.,  595).  It  is  not  perceived  that  any  State  can  have  any  claim  to  a  refund  of 
money  paid  by  its  citizens.  It  is  believed  the  draft  of  a  bill  herewith  submitted  may  be 
made  the  basis  of  a  judicious  mode  of  disposing  of  the  subject  to  which  it  applies.  The 
last  clause  of  Section  2  of  the  bill  is  added  oy  reason  of  the  undoubted  rule  of  law  learn- 
edly discussed  and  clearly  stated  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  United  States  vs.  Boss,  92  U.  S., 
284. 

I  append  hereto  a  table  showing,  with  substantial  accuracy,  the  amounts  of  taxes 
remaining  uncollected  in  several  States  and  Territories,  and  'which  it  is  proposed  to 
remit,  and  the  amounts  which  it  is  proposed  to  refund  to  the  several  States  and  Terri- 
tories. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully, 

WILLIAM  LAWRENCE,  Comptroller. 

Hon  Charles  J.  Folger,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

A  BILL. 

Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  is  authorized  and  required 
(1)  to  repay  to  the  proper  officer  of  each  State  the  amount  paid  by  such  State  for  direct 
taxes  laid  upon  and  apportioned  to  it  as  a  direct  tax,  under  the  Direct  Tax  Act  of 
August  5,  1861 ;  and  (2)  to  pay  to  the  proper  officer  of  any  such  State  any  and  all  sums 
allowed  by  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  as  due  to  it,  but  withheld 
and  credited  on  account  of  such  direct  tax;  and  (3)  to  place  to  the  credit  of  the  Commis- 
sioners of  the  District  of  Columbia,  in  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  a  sum  equal  to 
the  amount  paid  by  or  collected  from  said  District  on  account  of  said  direct  tax;  and  (4) 
to  cause  to  be  audited  by  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department,  and 
paid  to  the  original  legal  owner  or  owners  of  every  lot  or  parcel  of  land  sold  for  non- 
payment of  such  taxes,  or  to  his  or  their  legal  representatives,  the  amount  paid  at  such 


177 

sales,  or  otherwise  collected,  after  deducting  the  cost  thereof,  including  charges  and  com- 
missions not  otherwise  paid. 

And  all  such  taxes  laid  upon  any  State,  hut  not  paid,  are  hereby  remitted,  and  the 
charges  made  against  such  State  therefor  are  canceled.  All  accounts  with  any  State  shall 
be  so  adjusted  that  taxes  not  collected  are  remitted  and  amounts  paid  shall  be  refunded. 
And  a  sufficient  sum  of  money  is  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated  to  make  the  payments  herein  authorized.  The  word  "State" 
herein  shall  include  "Territory  "  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  so  far  as  necessary  to  effect 
the  objects  of  this  Act. 

Sec.  2.  In  making  payments  as  aforesaid  to  the  original  legal  owner  or  owners,  or  their 
legal  representatives,  of  any  lot  or  land  sold  for  non-payment  of  direct  taxes,  and  for 
refunding  of  the  surplus  proceeds  of  such  sales  as  now  authorized  (Act  August  5, 1861,  12 
Stat.,  304,  Sec.  36),  and  for  refunding  moneys  collected  or  repaying  money  withheld,  evi- 
dence of  payment  to  any  officer  authorized  to  receive  it  shall  be  deemed  a  payment  into 
the  Treasury  of  the  United  States. 

Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

No.  16  (original),  October  term,  1883. 

(Ex  parte:  In  the  matter  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia,  petitioner.     Petition  for 
mandamus.    March  17,  1884.) 

Mr.  Justice  Harlan  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court : 

This  is  an  application  for  a  writ  of  mandamus  directed  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
commanding  him  to  deliver  to  the  proper  officer  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia  the 
sum  of  $732,809  33,  that  being,  it  is  claimed,  the  amount  of  the  fourth  installment  of  public 
money  of  the  United  States  required  hj  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  June  23,  1836,  to  be 
deposited  with  that  State  upon  the  terms  and  conditions  therein  prescribed. 

The  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  sections  of  that  Act— the  only  parts  thereof  material  to 
the  present  inquiry — are  as  follows  : 

"  Sec.  13.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  money  which  shall  be  in  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1837,  reserving  the  sum  of  $5,000,000,  shall  be 
deposited  with  such  of  the  several  States,  in  proportion  to  their  respective  representation 
in  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  as  shall,  by  law, 
authorize  their  Treasurers,  or  other  competent  authorities,  to  receive  the  same  on  the 
terms  hereinafter  specified ;  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  deliver  the  same  to 
such  Treasurers  or  other  competent  authorities,  on  receiving  certificates  of  deposit 
therefor,  signed  by  such  competent  authorities,  in  such  form  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the 
Secretary  aforesaid,  which  certificates  shall  express  the  usual  and  legal  obligations,  and 
pledge  the  faith  of  the  State'for  the  safe  keeping  and  repayment  thereof,  and  shall  pledge 
the  faith  of  the  States  receiving  the  same  to  pay  the  said  moneys,  and  every  part  thereof, 
from  time  to  time,  whenever  the  same  shall  be  "required  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
for  the  purpose  of  defraying  any  wants  of  the  public  Treasury  beyond  the  amount  of  the 
five  millions  aforesaid;  provided,  that  if  any  State  declines  to  receive  its  j)roportion  of 
the  surplus  aforesaid,  on  the  terms  before  named,  the  same  shall  be  deposited  with  the 
other  States  agreeing  to  accept  the  same  on  deposit,  in  the  proportion  aforesaid ;  and  pro- 
vided further,  that  when  said  money,  or  any  part  thereof,  shall  be  wanted  by  the  said 
Secretary  to  meet  appropriations  by  law,  the  same  shall  be  called  for,  in  ratable  propor- 
tions, within  one  year,  as  nearly  as  conveniently  may  be,  from  the  different  States  with 
which  the  same  is  deposited,  and  shall  not  be  called  for  in  sums  exceeding  ten  thousand 
dollars  from  any  one  State,  in  any  one  month,  without  previous  notice  of  thirty  days  for 
every  additional  sum  of  twenty  thousand  dollars  which  may  at  any  time  be  required. 

"  Sec  14.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  said  deposits  shall  be  made  with  said  States 
in  the  following  proportions,  and  at  the  following  times,  to  wit,  one  quarter  part  on  the 
first  day  of  January,  1837,  or  as  soon  thereafter  as  may  be;  one  quarter  part  on  the  first 
day  of  April,  one  quarter  part  on  the  first  day  of  July,  and  one  quarter  part  on  the  first 
day  of  October,  all  in  the  same  year.*'    (5  Stat.,  55.) 

On  the  twentieth  of  December,  1836,  Virginia,  by  legislative  enactment,  signified  her 
acceptance  of  the  terms  and  conditions  of  this  Act,  of  which  due  notice  was  given  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  to  Congress. 

On  the  first  day  of  January,  1837,  as  appears  from  a  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury to  the  Speaker  of  the  llouse  of  Representatives,  under  date  of  January  3,  1837,  the 
balance  in  the  Treasury— in  excess  of  $5,000,000— subject  to  be  deposited  with  the  States, 
was  $37,468,859  97,  of  which  Virginia  would  have  been  entitled,  under  the  Act  of  June  23, 
1836,  to  the  sum  of  $2,931,237  34,  payable  in  four  installments.  (Ex.  Doc,  second  session 
Twenty-fourth  Congress,  vol.  2,  Doc.  No.  62.)  The  first  three  installments  were  deposited 
with  the  States  at  the  respective  dates  fixed  in  the  Act  of  Congress,  but  no  part  of  the 
fourth  has  ever  been  delivered.  The  reason  whv  the  last  installment  was  not  deposited 
on  the  first  of  October,  1837,  is  shown  by  the  niessage  of  President  Van  Buren  to  Con- 
gress, at  its  extra  session  in  September  of  that  vear.  He  said:  "There  are  now  in  the 
Treasury  $9,367,214,  directed  by  the  Act  of  the  twenty-third  of  June,  1836,  to  be  deposited 
with  the  States  in  October  next.  This  sum,  if  so  deposited,  will  be  subject,  under  the  law, 
to  be  recalled,  if  needed,  to  defray  existing  appropriations ;  and,  as  it  is  now  evident  that 

12- 


178 

the  whole,  or  the  principal  part  of  it,  will  be  wanted  for  that  purpose,  it  appears  most 

E roper  that  the  deposits  should  be  withheld."    (Cong.  Globe  and  Appendix,-vol.  5,  p.  8, 
rst  session  Twenty-fifth  Congress.) 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  his  report  to  Congress  at  the  same  session,  after 
alluding  to  the  then  disturbed  condition  of  the  finances,  and  to  the  fourth  installment, 
payable  in  October,  1837,  suggested  that,  in  view  of  the  condition  of  the  finances,  "  and  the 
importance  of  meeting  with  efficiency  and  good  faith  all  the  obligations  of  the  Govern- 
ment to  the  public  creditors,  it  would  be  most  judicious  to  apply  the  whole  installment, 
as  fast  as  it  is  wanted  and  can  be  collected,  to  the  prompt  discharge  of  these  obligations, 
and  that  the  last  deposit  with  the  States,  not  being  a  debt,  but  a  mere  temporary  dis- 
posal of  a  surplus,  should  be  postponed  until  Congress,  in  some  different  state  of  the 
finances,  when  such  an  available  surplus  may  exist,  shall  see  a  manifest  propriety  and 
ability  in  completing  the  deposits,  and  shall  give  directions  to  that  effect."  (Ex,  Doc.  and 
Eeports  of  Committees,  first  session  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  Doc.  No.  2.) 

By  an  Act  of  Congress  approved  October  2, 1837,  it  was  provided  "  that  the  transfer  of 
the  fourth  installment  of  deposit  directed  to  be  made  with  the  States  under  the  thirteenth 
section  of  the  Act  of  June  23,  1836,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  postponed  until  the  first  day 
of  January,  1839;  provided,  that  the  three  first  installments  under  the  said  Act  shall 
remain  on  deposit  with  the  States  until  otherwise  directed  by  Congress."    (5  Stat.,  201.) 

But  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1839,  there  was  not,  as  the  petition  admits,  in  the 
Treasury  a  sufficient  amount  to  meet  that  installment  after  paying  existing  appropria- 
tions for  the  current  expenses  of  the  Government.  And  by  the  third  section  of  an  Act 
approved  August  13,  1841,  the  entire  Act  of  June  23, 1836,  "excepting  its  thirteenth  and 
fourteenth  sections,  was  repealed.    (5  Stat.,  440.) 

The  petition  concedes  that  at  no  time  since  January  1,  1841,  until  within  the  past  few 
years,  has  there  been  in  the  Treasury  a  surplus  of  money  large  enough,  after  defraying 
existing  charges  imposed  by  Congress,  to  make  the  fourth  installment  of  deposit. 

It  is,  however,  alleged  that  there  is  now  in  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  a  sufficient 
sum  of  money,  after  defraying  all  the  existing  charges  imposed  by  Congress  upon  the 
Treasury,  and  not  needed  or  wanted  by  the  Secretary  to  meet  appropriations  by  law,  or 
to  meet  the  interest  accruing  upon  the  public  debt,  or  to  meet  all  the  expenditures  of  the 
Government,  estimated  or  ascertained  by  him  for  the  present  fiscal  year,  to  make  the 
deposits  of  the  fourth  installment  with  all  of  the  States  with  which  said  deposits  were 
directed  to  be  made. 

The  present  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  having  refused,  upon  the  demand  of  Virginia,  by 
its  duly  authorized  agent,  to  use  any  part  of  the  public  moneys  for  the  purpose  of  meet- 
ing that  installment,  the  present  application  has  been  made  for  a  mandamus  compelling 
him  to  deposit  with  that  State  an  amount  equal  to  one  fourth  of  the  said  sum  of  $2,931,- 
237  32. 

No  case  is  made  for  a  mandamus.  If  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
in  execution  of  the  Act  of  1836,  to  make  the  fourth  installment  of  deposit  on  the  day  fixed 
in  that  Act,  whatever  may  have  been  on  that  day  the  wants  of  the  public  Treasury,  his 
failure  to  do  so  was  legalized  by  the  Act  of  October  2,  1837,  postponing  that  deposit  until 
January  1,  1839.  Of  the  latter  Act  the  States  could  not  complain,  because  that  of  January  ' 
23,  1836,  created  no  debt  or  legal  obligation  upon  the  part  of  the  Government,  but  only 
made  the  States  the  depositaries,  temporarily,  of  a  portion  of  the  public  revenue  not 
needed,  as  was  then  supposed,  for  the  purposes  of  the  United  States. 

What  was  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  on  January  1,  1839,  to  which  time,  by  the  Act  of 
1837,  the  deposit  of  the  fourth  installment  was  postponed  ?  It  is  conceded  that  there  was 
not  in  the  Treasury  on  January  1,  1839,  a  sufficient  amount  available  and  applicable  to 
public  purposes,  after  paying  necessary  appropriations  for  the  expenses  of  tne  Govern- 
ment, to  meet  that  installment.  He  could  not,  therefore,  do  what  he  might  then  lawfully 
have  done,  had  the  Treasury,  on  January  1,  1839,  been  in  the  condition  contemplated  by 
Congress  when  the  Act  of  1837  was  passed.  The  last  direction  given  by  the  legislative 
department  upon  the  subject  of  this  installment  is  found  in  the  latter  Act.  No  authority 
has  been  conferred  upon  the  Secretary,  by  subsequent  legislation,  to  use  any  surplus  rev- 
enue accruing  after  January  1,  1839,  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the  fourth  installment  of 
deposit.  Congress,  by  the  original  Act,  as  we  have  seen,  charged  the  payment  of  the 
several  installments  upon  the  revenue,  above  $5,000,000,  which  might  be  in  the  Treasury 
on  January  1,  1837.  That  charge  was  transferred  to  and  imposed  upon  the  surplus  rev- 
enue in  the  Treasury  on  January  1,  1839.  But  no  such  charge  has  been  imposed  upon  the 
revenue  accruing  subsequently  to  the  latter  date. 

Congress  has  permitted  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  sections  of  the  Act  of  1836,  as 
modified  by  the  Act  of  October  2, 1837,  to  stand,  for  the  purpose,  as  we  infer,  of  showing 
not  only  the  terms  upon  which  the  States  received  the  first  three  installments  of  deposit, 
but  that  those  installments  are  held  by  the  States,  subject  to  be  recalled  in  the  discretion 
of  the  United  States. 

But  the  legislative  department  of  the  Government  seems  purposely  to  have  refrained 
from  making  the  fourth  installment  of  deposit  a  charge  directly  upon  any  revenues  accru- 
ing since  January  1,  1839.  Since  the  last  direction  given  by  Congress  upon  the  subject, 
the  financial  necessities  and  obligations  of  the  Government  have  laeen  largely  increased, 
and  this  circumstance,  perhaps,  suggests  the  reason  why  the  legislative  department  has 
not  fixed  any  day  for  the  final  execution  of  the  Act  of  1836.  Be  the  reason  what  it  may, 
we  are  of  opinion  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  no  authority  under  existing  leg- 
islation, and  without  further  direction  from  Congress,  to  use  the  surplus  revenue  in  the 


179 


Treasury,  from  whatever  source  derived,  or  whenever,  since  January  1,  1839,  it  may  have 
accrued,  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  fourth  installment  of  the  deposit  required  by  the 
Act  of  1836. 

The^  petition  for  a  mandamus  must,  consequently,  be  denied. 

It  is'  so  ordered. 

The  Fourth  Installment  claimed  to  he  due  under  the  Act  of  June  23, 1836. 


Name  of  the  State. 


Date  of  Acts  of  Acceptance 
by  States. 


Fourth  Install- 
ment Due. 


Maine 

New  Hampshire . 
Massachusetts... 

Vermont 

Connecticut 

Rhode  Island 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania  — 

Delaware 

Maryland 

Virginia 

North  Carolina  . 
South  Carolina  . 

Georgia 

Alabama 

Louisiana 


Mississippi 
Tennessee  . 
Kentucky  . 

Ohio 

Missouri... 
Indiana  ... 

Illinois 

Michigan .. 
Arkansas .. 


January  26,  1837 

January  11,  1837 

January  19,  1837 

November  17,1836  .-.. 

December  29, 1836 

November  10,  1836  -... 

January  10,  1837 

November  4,  1836 

December  22, 1836 

January  16,  1837 

December  30, 1836 

December  20, 1836 

January  11,  1837 

December  21,  1836 

December  26, 1836 

December  16, 1836 

Februarv  7, 1837 

March  13, 1837 

May  2,  1837 

October  29,  1836 

December  16,  1836 

December  19,  1836 

December  29,  1836 

December  21, 1836 

December  17, 1836 

July  22, 1836 

October  29, 1836 


$318,612  75 
223,028  93 
446,057  86 
223,028  93 
254,890  20 
127,445  10 

1,338,173  57 
254,890  20 
955,838  26 
95,583  83 
318,612  75 
732,809  33 
477,919  13 
350;474  03 
350,474  03 
223,028  93 

159,306  38 

127,445  10 
477,919  13 
477,919  13 
669,086  78 
127,445  10 
286,751  48 
159,308  38 
95,583  83 
95,583  83 


Total  amount  due  all  of  said  States. 


1,367,214  97 


Letter  of  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  respecting  the  direct  tax  collected  in  South 

Carolina. 

Treasury  Department,  First  Comptroller's  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  February  14, 1885.         j 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  ninth  instant, 
relative  to  the  direct  tax  account  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina. 

As  you  state,  the  quota  of  South  Carolina  was  $363,570  67;  of  which  $152,781  35  was  col- 
lected, leaving  uncollected  taxes  aggregating  $210,789  32.  But  no  account  with  the  State 
for  her  said  quota  has  yet  been  adjusted. 

The  account  to  which  you  refer,  was  with  the  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  South  Car- 
olina, who  had  been  debited,  not  only  with  the  State  quota  of  taxes,  but  with  penalties, 
interest,  costs,  proceeds  of  sales  of  land,  proceeds  of  redemption  of  land,  resale  and  rent 
of  land,  and  other  miscellaneous  collections,  and  credited  with  cash  deposited  and  with 
disbursements  for  salaries  of  collectors  and  clerks,  stationery,  joostage,  advertising,  rent 
of  office,  etc.,  and  for  the  taxes  remaining  uncollected,  as  aforesaid. 

Of  the  foregoing  debits  the  aggregate  sum  of  $241,503  92  is  understood  to  be  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  leases  and  sales  of  land,  as  made  to  the  Army  and  Navy,  heads  of  familias, 
citizens,  etc.;  and  of  said  sum  the  one  fourth  part  ($60,375  98)  has  been  paid  to  the  Gov- 
ernor of  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  under  Act  of  June  7,  1862,  12  Stat.,  422. 

Of  the  actual  net  avails  of  said  leases  and  resales  this  office  has  not  the  means  at  hand 
to  determine. 

Very  respectfully, 

WILLIAM  LAWRENCE,  Comptroller. 
By  J.  TARBELL,  Deputy  Comptroller. 

Hon.  A.  J.  Warner,  Chairman  of  Sub-Committee  on  Claims,  House  of  Representatives, 
Washington,  D.  C. 


180 
EXHIBIT  No.  21. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  6713.    Printer's  No.,  7688. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     April  21,  1884 — Read  twice,  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Bennett  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  suspend  the  collection  of  the  direct  tax  imposed  hy  an  Act  of  Congress 
passed  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one. 

Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,'  That  the  collection  in  any  of  the  States 
heretofore  declared  in  insurrection  of  the  direct  tax  imposed  by  an  Act  of 
Congress  passed  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  entitled 
"An  Act  to  provide  increased  revenue  from  imports,  to  pay  interest  on  the 
public  debt,  and  for  other  purposes,"  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  suspended 
until  otherwise  provided  by  law. 


# 


EXHIBIT  No.  22. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  595.    Report  No.  124. 


In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  December  11,  1883 — Mr.  Colquitt 
asked  and  by  unanimous  consent  obtained  leave  to  bring  in  the  following 
bill,  which  was  read  twice,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Claims. 

February  6, 1884 — Reported  by  Mr.  Hoar  with  an  amendment,  viz. :  Strike 
out  all  after  the  enacting  clause  and  insert  the  part  printed  in  italics. 

A   BILL 

To  repay  the  State  of  Georgia  twenty-seven  thousand  one  hundred  and  seventy- 
five  dollars  and  fifty  cents,  money  advanced  hy  said  State  for  the  defense  of 
her  frontiers  against  the  Indians  from  seventeen  hundred  and,  ninety  five  to 
eighteen  hundred  and  eighteen,  and  not  heretofore  repaid. 

Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America^  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  audit  the  claims  of  the  State  of 
Georgia  for  moneys  advanced  by  said  State  to  pay  troops  ordered  into 
service  for  the  defense  of  her  frontiers  against  the  -Indians  from  seventeen 
hundred  and  ninety-five  to  eighteen  hundred  and  eighteen,  inclusive,  and 
not  heretofore  repaid  to  said  State;  and  to  pay  to  said  State  such  sum,  not 
exceeding  twenty-two  thousand  five  hundred  and  sixty-seven  dollars  and 
forty-two  cents,  as  he  shall  find  due  and  unpaid,  out  of  any  moneys  in  the 
Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated;  provided,  that  if  there  be  any  sums  of 
money  due  or  owing  to  the  United  States  by  the  State  of  Georgia,  whatever 
amount,  if  any,  may  be  found  due  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act  to  the 
State  of  Georgia  shall  be  credited  to  that  State,  and  the  balance  only  shall 
be  paid  by  the  State  of  Georgia  or  the  United  States,  as  shall  appear  by 
the  striking  of  a  balance  to  be  due  from  the  one  party  or  the  other. 


181 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  4703.    Printer's  No.  6496.    Report  No.  752. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.  February  5, 1884 — Read  twice,  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

March  11,  1884 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on 
the  State  of  the  Union,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Hammond  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  require  the  payment  in  cash  to  the  State  of  Georgia  of  thirty-five  thousand 
five  hundred  and  fifty-five  dollars  and  forty-two  cents,  appropriated  for  said 
State  by  an  Act  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain  money  expended 
by  said  State  for  the  common  defense  i^  seventeen  hundred  and  seventy- 
seven,  approved  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-three. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  directed  and  required  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Georgia, 
or  its  lawfully  authorized  agent,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated,  the  sum  of  thirty-five  thousand  five  hundred  and 
fifty-five  dollars  and  forty-two  cents  in  cash,  which  sum  was  appropriated 
for  the  said  State  by  an  Act  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain  money 
expended  by  said  State  for  the  common  defense  in  seventeen  hundred  and 
seventy-seven,  approved  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-three. 

Sec'  2.  That  all  laws  or  parts  of  laws,  and  all  rulings  or  decisions  of 
any  department  of  the  Government,  or  of  any  officer  thereof,  inconsistent 
with  the  foregoing  section,  be  and  are  hereby  repealed  and  annulled. 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  1948. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  March  28,  1884 — Mr.  Brown  intro- 
duced the  following  bill,  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Claims: 

A  BILL 

To  require  the  payment  in  cash  to  the  State  of  Georgia  of  thirty-five  thousand 
five  hundred  and  fifty-five  dollars  and  forty-two  cents  appropriated  for  said 
State  by  an  Act  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain  money  expended 
by  said  State  for  the  common  defense  in  seventeen  hundred  and  seventy- 
seven,  approved  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-three. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  directed  and  required  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Georgia, 
or  its  lawfully  authorized  agent,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated,  the  sum  of  thirty-five  thousand  five  hundred  and 
fifty-five  dollars  and  forty -two  cents  in  cash,  which  sum  was  appropriated 
for  the  said  State  by  an  Act  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain  money 
expended  by  said  State  for  the  common  defense  in  seventeen  hundred  and 
seventy-seven,  approved  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-three. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  laws  or  parts  of  laws,  and  all  rulings  or  decisions  of 
any  department  of  the  Government,  or  of  any  officer  thereof,  inconsistent 
with  the  foregoing  section,  be  and  are  hereby  repealed  and  annulled. 


182 


EXHIBIT  No.  23. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  No.  752. 

PAYMENT  TO  STATE  OF  GEORGIA. 

March  11,  1884 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on 
the  state  of  the  Union,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Hammond,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  submitted  the  fol- 
lowing 

REPORT. 
[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  4703.] 

The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  whom  was  referred  bill  H.  R.  4703^ 
have  considered  the  same,  and  submit  the  following  report: 
By  Act  approved  March  3,  1883,  it  was  enacted: 

That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  required  to  pay 
to  the  State  of  Georgia,  or  its  lawfully  authorized  agent,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury 
not  otherwise  appropriated,  the  sum  of  thirty-five  thousand  five  hundred  and  fifty-five 
dollars  and  forty-two  cents ;  the  payment  herein  directed  to  be  made,  being  for  money 
paid  by  said  State  for  supplies  for  the  troops  in  seventeen  hundred  and  seventy-seven,, 
under  the  command  of  General  James  Jackson,  engaged  in  local  defense  for  the  common 
cause  of  independence,  and  which  was  not  included  in  the  account  of  the  State  of  Georgia 
in  the  settlement  with  the  General  Government  under  the  Assumption  Act  of  seventeen 
hundred  and  ninety  (22  IJ.  S.  Stat.  485). 

The  bill  under  consideration  is  to  compel  payment  of  said  sum  in  cash^ 
and  that  all  laws  or  parts  of  laws,  and  all  rulings  or  decisions  of  any 
department  of  the  Government,  or  of  any  officer  thereof,  inconsistent  with 
such  payment,  be  repealed  and  annulled. 

The  necessity  for  the  legislation  arises  because  Mr.  Lawrence,  the  First 
Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  decided  that  the  amount  so  appropriated 
should  not  be  paid,  but  be  entered  as  a  credit  upon  an  alleged  indebted- 
ness of  the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  States,  on  account  of  its  quota 
of  direct  tax  levied  by  Acts  of  1861  and  1862;  and  therefore  the  money  has 
been  withheld. 

A  little  history  will  cast  much  light  upon  the  subject.  The  Act  of  August 
5,  1861,  provided  for  collectors  and  assessors,  and  for  lists  of  property 
"  from  all  persons  owning,  possessing,  and  having  the  care  or  management 
of  any  lands,"  etc.,  for  the  purpose  of  taxing  the  same.  (Sections  fourteen 
to  twenty-nine,  inclusive.) 

Section  thirty-three  enacted  that  "the  taxes  so  assessed  shall  be  and 
remain  a  lien  upon  all  lands  and  other  real  estate  of  the  individuals  who 
may  be  assessed  for  the  same  "  for  two  years. 

Section  fifty-two  provided  that  as  soon  as  Federal  authority  could  be 
restored  in  the  Southern  States,  the  tax  should  be  collected  "  from  the  per- 
sons residing  or  holding  property  or  stocks  therein." 

The  eighth  section  enacted: 

That  a  direct  tax  of  twenty  miUions  of  dollars  be  and  is  hereby  annually  laid  upon  the 
United  States,  and  the  same  shall  be  and  is  hereby  apportioned  to  the  States  respectively, 
in  manner  following:  *  *  *  To  the  State  of  Georgia,  five  hundred  and  eighty -four 
thousand  three  hundred  and  sixty-seven  and  one  third  dollars. 

To  the  other  States  according  to  their  populations  respectively.  But  so 
far  from  proposing  to  tax  the  States  as  such,  by  section  thirteen,  it  expressly 


183 

exempted  from  such  taxes  "  all  property  of,  of  whatever  kind  *  *  * 
belonging  to  the  United  States  or  any  State,"  etc. 

Section  fifty-three  enacted:  "That  any  State  or  Territory  and  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  may  lawfully  assume,  assess,  collect,  and  pay  into  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States  the  direct  tax,  or  its  quota  thereof,  imposed 
by  this  Act  upon  the  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  in  its 
own  way  and  manner,  by  and  through  its  own  officers,  assessors,  and  col- 
lectors," with  addition  of  fifteen  per  cent  if  paid  by  the  thirtieth  of  June, 
and  of  ten  per  cent  if  paid  by  the  last  of  September  of  the  tax  year.  It 
further  provided,  "  that  whenever  notice  of  the  intention  to  make  such  pay- 
ment by  the  State,  Territory,  and  the  District  of  Columbia  shall  have  been 
given  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,"  then  the  United  States  should 
cease  trying  to  collect  by  its  officers,  unless  such  State  should  "be  in 
default."  In  that  event  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  "was  to  collect  all 
or  any  part  of  said  direct  tax  the  same  as  though  said  State,  Territory,  or 
District  had  not  given  notice  .nor  assumed  to  levy,  collect,  and  pay  said 
taxes  or  any  part  thereof  (Section  46)." 

Said  section  fifty-three  further  provided: 

That  the  amount  of  direct  tax  apportioned  to  any  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Col- 
umbia, shall  be  liable  to  be  paid  and  satisfied  in  whole  or  in  part  by  the  release  of  such 
State,  Territory,  or  District,  duly  executed  to  the  United  States,  of  any  liquidated  and 
determined  claim  of  such  State,  Territory,  or  District  of  equal  amount  against  the  United 
States,  with  the  same  abatement  as  if  it  were  paid  in  money.    (See  12  U.  S.  Stat.,  292-312.) 

Another  law  of  June  7,  1862,  applied  only  to  the  States  in  "insurrection 
or  rebellion."  It  made  the  tax  upon  each  parcel  of  land  in  each  State 
chargeable  with  the  tax  due  upon  that  parcel,  plus  fifty  per  cent,  and 
made  a  lien  on  the  lands  therefor.  It  provided  that  "the  owner  or  owners 
of  said  lots  or  parcels  of  lands  "  might  discharge  them  by  paying  within  a 
fixed  time. 

It  provided  for  commissions  to  collect  the  tax  in  those  States,  to  sell  the 
lands  of  defaulting  owners,  etc.,  but  was  silent  as  to  any  assumption  of  the 
tax  by  those  States.     (12  U.  S.  Statutes,  422-426.) 

From  time  to  time  Congress  passed  other  Acts  as  to  direct  taxes,  but 
none  of  them  seem  to  have  any  bearing  upon  this  question.  For  instance, 
that  of  May  13, 1862,  enlarged  the  release  proviso  to  include  certain  expend- 
itures of  the  States  in  sending  troops  to  the  war,  etc.  {lb.,  384);  that  of 
July  1,  1862,  Hmited  the  collection  to  one  year,  till  April,  1865  (lb.,  489), 
and  that  of  February  6,  1863,  provided  for  sales  of  lands  and  redemption 
by  their  "owners"  (lb.,  640). 

All  the  States,  etc.,  "formally  assumed  the  payment  of  the  tax,  except 
Delaware,  the  Territory  of  Colorado,  and  the  eleven  insurrectionary  States." 
(Report  Commissioner  Internal  Revenue,  1870.  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  24,  first 
session  Forty-sixth  Congress,  236). 

The  collection  of  them  was  suspended  as  to  unpaid  sums  by  Congress. 

In  1868  an  account  was  opened  upon  the  books  of  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment against  the  State  of  Georgia,  for  her  said  quota  of  the  direct  tax, 
though  Georgia  had  in  no  way  assumed  to  pay  the  same.  We  stop  not 
now  to  discuss  why  that  was  done,  but  proceed  with  the  history. 

The  Western  and  Atlantic  Railroad  belonged  to  Georgia.  The  State 
bought  for  said  road  some  of  the  rolling  stock  which  had  been  used  by  the 
United  States  at  the  South  in  prosecuting  the  late  war.  This  property  was 
paid  for  in  cash,  the  last  payment  being  on  the  sixteenth  of  October,  1867. 
By  an  Act  approved  the  third  of  March,  1877,  because  of  alleged  over- 
valuation of  said  property  when  sold,  Congress  authorized  the  reopening  of 
said  account  and  adjustment  thereof.     The  Act  required: 


184 

That  when  said  claims  shall  have  been  adjusted  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  this 
Act,  the  Secretary  of  War  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  to  issue  his  warrant  on  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States  to  the  Governor  of  Georgia  or  his  order,  for  the  amount 
of  money  it  is  found  ought  to  be  refunded  to  said  railroad  on  account  of  said  settlement 
(19  U.  S.  Stat.,  402-3). 

The  amount  found  to  be  due  the  State  on  that  account  was  $199,038  58. 
(See  Q.  M.  Genl's  Report,  1877,  p.  120.) 

So  far  as  we  are  advised,  no  question  of  set-off  was  then  made.  Cer- 
tainly the  money  was  paid  in  cash. 

On  the  third  of  March,  1879,  Congress  enacted  in  the  Sundry  Civil  Bill: 

That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of 
Georgia  $72,298  94,  for  advances  made  to  the  United  States  for  the  suppression  of  hostilities 
by  the  Creek,  Seminole,  and  Cherokee  Indians  in  1835,  1836,  1837,  and  1838,  and  that  said 
sum  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

When  payment  was  requested,  the  Third  Auditor  called  attention  to  this 
direct  tax  account,  and  asked  information.  Mr.  Sherman,  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  referred  to  Hon.  A.  G.  Porter,  First  Comptroller: 

Whether  said  amount  should  be  set  off  against  the  amount  of  the  direct  tax  under  Act 
August  5, 1861,  and  Acts  amendatory  thereto,  apportioned  to  the  State. 

He  wrote  an  opinion.  In  stating  the  facts,  after  giving  a  Synopsis  of  the 
Acts  of  1861  and  of  June,  1862,  ante,  he  added: 

The  State  of  Georgia  never  assumed  the  amount  apportioned  to  that  State,  or  any  part 
of  it. 

And  then,  after  stating  the  question,  he  said: 

If  the  sum  apportioned  is  a  debt  owing  by  the  State  of  Georgia  as  a  political  corporation, 
then  it  may  be  assumed  that  it  ought  to  be  so  credited.  If,  however,  it  is  a  debt  owing  by 
the  persons  within  that  State,  whose  lands  have  been  taxed,  and  not  by  the  State  itself, 
then  payment  ought  not  to  be  withheld. 

He  then  called  attention  to  the  decision  of  Mr.  McCulloch,  Secretar}^  of 
the  Treasury  in  1866,  as  to  Texas,  and  said: 

Mr.  McCulloch  treated  the  apportionment  of  the  direct  tax  as  a  debt  owing  by  citizens 
of  Texas,  belonging  to  the  class  whose  property  was  taxed,  and  not  as  a  debt  owing  by  the 
State  in  its  political  capacity. 

Proceeding,  he  said: 

The  privilege  of  a  State  to  assume  implies  that  the  debt  before  the  assumption  was  not  its 
own.  Before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  the  person  whose  property  was  charged 
with  the  tax  owed  the  tax  to  the  State,  because  the  State  imposed  it  and  levied  and  col- 
lected it.  Since  the  adoption  of  that  instrument  the  United  States  has  imposed  the  tax, 
and  has  itself  levied  and  collected  it.  The  obligation  of  the  citizen  is  therefore  to  the 
Union  and  not  to  the  State,  and  he,  and  not  the  State,  is  the  debtor. 

Enforcing  his  view  by  various  citations,  urging  that  any  other  would 
leave  the  States  with  power  to  thwart  the  collection  of  taxes,  in  an  emer- 
gency, directly  from  the  people,  and  declaring  that  this  direct  tax  of  1861 
could  still  be  collected  when  the  United  States  wishes,  he  concluded: 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  it  is  my  duty  to  direct  that  the  sum  appropriated  to  the  State 
of  Georgia  shall  not  be  credited  as  upon  a  debt  owing  by  that  State  to  the  United  States, 
but  shall  be  paid  at  once  to  the  State. 


185 

In  answer  to  a  resolution  by  the  Senate  this  decision  was  transmitted, 
''with  accompanying  papers,"  to  the  Senate  by  Secretary  Sherman  on  May 
24,  1879.     (See  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  No.  24,  first  session  Forty-sixth  Congress.) 

The  "accompanying  papers"  show  that,  before  this  opinion  was  made, 
attention  was  called  to  the  fact  that  Kansas,  Missouri,  West  Virginia,  and 
other  States  had  been  credited  with  various  sums  there  stated.  Mr.  Porter 
paid  no  attention  to  them,  because  (as  we  presume)  they  had  assumed 
their  respective  quotas,  and  thus  made  them  a  debt  against  the  States  as 
such.  Subsequently,  in  May,  1881,  Mr.  Lawrence,  the  successor  of  Mr. 
Porter,  decided  the  Kansas  case.  His  opinion  contains  thirty-three  head- 
notes  and  twenty-five  sub-headnotes.  Those  which  are  material,  in  our 
opinion,  to  the  present  discussion,  are  as  follows: 

In  May,  1879,  it  was  decided  by  the  then  First  Comptroller  that  the  direct  tax  appor- 
tioned to  the  State  of  Georgia  by  the  Acts  of  August  5,  1861,  and  of  June  7,  1862,  was 
not  a  debt  of  the  corporate  State,  which  had  not  by  an  Act  assumed  it;  and  that  although 
the  tax  had  not  been  paid,  yet  money  due  from  the  United  States  to  the  State  must  be 
paid  to  the  latter,  and  could  not  be  used  by  way  of  set-off  or  in  discharge  of  any  part  of 
the  claim  for  direct  taxes.  (S.  Ex.  Doc.  24,  first  session,  Forty-sixth  Congress.)  That  con- 
clusion is  correct  in  law.  The  decision  of  that  question  was  affected  somewhat  by  the  Act 
of  June  7, 1862,  not  applicable  to  the  question  now  presented.  But  the  same  result  would 
be  reached  without  reference  to  it.  Under  the  Constitution,  Congress  cannot  levy  or 
enforce  the  collection  of  a  tax  or  assessment  on  a  corporate  State  which  has  not  assumed 
it.  The  National  Government  does  not  operate  on  States  in  the  collection  of  revenues, 
but  on  persons  or  property,  or  both.    (2  Lawrence,  Compt.,  Dec,  310.) 

He  further  held  that  his  predecessors  had  decided  that  Kansas  had  vol- 
untarily assumed  her  quota  of  the  tax;  that  he  was  bound  by  that  decision, 
and  that  therefore  a  sum  appropriated  to  Kansas  should  not  be  paid,  but 
must  be  placed  to  her  credit  against  said  assumed  debt.     (lb.  324.) 

The  decision  of  Lawrence,  Comptroller,  made  twelfth  May,  1883,  refusing 
to  pay  this  money  to  Georgia,  has  thirty  headnotes.  We  do  not  believe  that 
we  need  differ  with  any  of  them  but  the  sixth,  seventh,  tenth,  and  nine- 
teenth.    We  call  attention  to  them,  and  the  eighth  also. 

They  are: 

6.  The  First  Comptroller  had  •jurisdiction  and  authority  in  May,  1868,  to  certify  a  bal- 
ance as  due  from  the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  states,  for  the  quota  of  direct  taxes 
apportioned  to  said  State  by  the  direct  tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861.    (12  Stat,  294.) 

7.  The  Comptroller  now  in  office  cannot  inquire  whether  the  Comptroller  in  office  in 
May,  1868,  who  then  certified  a  balance  due  from  the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  States 
on  account  of  direct  taxes,  and  before  him  sufficient  evidence  to  authorize  such  action,  or 
whether  on  such  evidence  as  he  then  had  he  properly  construed  the  law.  The  J  udicial  Courts 
or  Congress  can  furnish  the  only  relief  in  such  case,  if  the  Comptroller  erred  in  charging 
the  State  with  such  liability. 

8.  Congress  may  by  law  require  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  to 
set  off  a  claim  of  the'^United  States  against  a  State,  when  such  State  demands  payment  of 
a  claim  due  to  it  from  the  United  States,  although  in  such  case  Congress  might  not  under 
the  Constitution  charge  such  corporate  State  with  a  liability  and  enforce  its  payment  in 
any  other  mode  except  by  such  set-off". 

9.  The  legislation  of  Congress  in  relation  to  the  quota  of  direct  taxes  apportioned  to 
Missouri  and  West  Virginia  seems  in  principle  to  recognize  the  correctness  of  the  judg- 
ment of  the  First  Comptroller,  by  which,  in  May,  1868,  he  certified  a  balance  as  due  from 
the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  States  for  its  quota  of  the  direct  tax  apportioned  to  that 
State  by  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861. 

10.  The  direct  tax  Act  of  August  5, 1861  (12  Stat.,  311,  Section  53),  provides  a  special  statu- 
tory mode  of  paying  the  quota  of  tax  apportioned  to  any  State  by  declaring  that  it  shall  be 
liable  to  be  paid  by  set-off  "  of  any  liquidating  and  determined  claim  of  such  State  *  *  * 
against  the  United  States." 

*******  *  **** 

19.  The  balance  certified  by  the  First  Comptroller,  May  29,  1868,  as  due  to  the  United 
States  from  the  State  of  Georgia,  for  its  quota  of  direct  tax,  under  the  Act  of  August  5, 
1861,  has  not  been  in  any  form  set  aside  or  rendered  inoperative. 


186 

First — Did  any  Comptroller  ever,  in  any  fair  sense,  try  to  raise  a  debt 
against  Georgia  for  this  tax?  Mr.  Lawrence,  in  this  opinion,  stated  the 
facts  in  this  language: 

May  11,  1868,  by  Report  No.  55,448  the  Fifth  Auditor  "  examined  and  adjusted  an  account 
between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Georgia,"  and  found  "that' the  sum  of  $584,- 
367  33  is  due  from  said  State  to  the  United  States  *  *  *  for  amount  of  direct  tax 
imposed  and  apportioned  by  the  eighth  section  of"  the  direct  tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861, 
"amount  to  be  debited  to  the  State  of  Georgia  on  the  books  of  the  Register  of  the 
Treasury." 

May  19, 1868,  the  First  Comptroller  certified  to  the  Register  a  balance  due  and  payable 
as  stated  in  the  above  report,  and  it  was  accordingly  charged  on  the  Register's  books,  as 
a  debt  due  from  the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  States. 

September  3,  1874,  the  Fifth  Auditor  by  Report  No.  5  adjusted  an  account  between  the 
United  States  and  T.  P.  Robb,  Samuel  A.  Pancoast,  and  John  C.  Bates,  Commissioners  of 
Direct  Tax  for  the  State  of  Georgia,  from  August  1,  1865,  to  December  15,  1866,  and  f oun  d 
them  chargeable  with  "  amount  of  direct  tax  laid  upon  the  State  of  Georgia  by  Act  of 
Congress  approved  August  5, 1861,  $584,367  33."  The  report  shows  costs  chargeable  to  the 
State  $649  72,  and  finds  the  Commissioners  entitled  to  credit  for  salaries  and  expenses 
$9,835  06,  amount  of  taxes  remaining  uncollected  $501,939  86,  amount  refunded  to  tax- 
payers on  account  of  collections  improperly  made  $46  17,  and  cash  deposited'$71,407  75, 
covered  into  the  Treasury  by  miscellaneous  warrants  numbered  and  dated  in  1866, 
respectively,  747  March  31,  524  June  25,  697  June  30,  596  September  29,  and  726  Decem- 
ber 31. 

January  9, 1875,  the  Acting  First  Comptroller  certified  a  balance  of  $1,788  22  "  due  to 
the  United  States  from  the  Commissioners,  as  stated  in  the  above  report."  The  amount 
of  these  warrants  was  placed  to  the  credit  of  the  State  of  Georgia  in  the  Register's  Office 
on  said  account  for  direct  taxes. 

In  May,  1868,  the  amount  fixed  by  the  statute  as  the  quota  of  Georgia 
was  charged  to  her,  and  afterwards,  in  1874,  the  same  amount  was  charged 
by  the  same  office  to  the  United  States  Commissioners  of  Direct-  Tax  for 
the  State  of  Georgia,  and  they  were  credited  with  various  sums  collected 
and  uncollected,  and  among  others  an  "amount  refunded  to  taxpayers  on 
account  of  collections  improperly  made,  $46  17."  The  dealing  with  "  tax- 
payers "  showed  that  the  State  was  not  considered  the  debtor.  The  "  tax- 
payers "  owed  only  if  GeorgiU  had  not  assumed  the  debt.  Taking  the  two 
accounts  together,  it  seems  plain  that  the  account  was  so  stated  only  for 
convenience  of  keeping  the  books  of  the  Department.  Any  other  view 
makes  us  to  assume  that  the  officer  raising  the  account  acted  in  ignorance 
of  the  law.  The  First  Comptroller  could  have  no  jurisdiction  under  the 
Act  of  1861  to  state  an  account  against  any  State  which  had  not  assumed 
the  debt. 

It  is  true,  as  stated  in  the  tenth  headnote,  supra,  that  said  Act  provides 
a  special  statutory  mode  of  paying  the  quota  of  tax  apportioned  to  any 
State,  by  declaring  that  it  "  shall  be  liable  to  be  paid"  by  set-off  "  of  any 
liquidated  and  determined  claim  of  such  State  *  *  ^  against  the 
United  States."  But  more  is  true.  That  "special  statutory  mode  of  pay- 
ing" is  in  the  words  which  Mr.  Lawrence  omitted  from  the  quotation,  viz., 
"  by  the  release  of  such  State  *  *  *  didy  executed  to  the  United  States.''^ 
By  such  release,  with  a  view  to  such  credit,  the  State  consents  to  the 
account  against  it,  and  thus  assumes  the  debt.  It  was  by  such  a  release 
that  Missouri  was  credited  (see  Act  July  17,  1862,  in  said  Senate  Ex. 
Doc.  24,  p.  197).  The  same  is  true  as  to  West  Virginia,  under  the  Act  of 
February  25,  1867  (7b.,  207).  They  assumed  the  debt  and  sought  to  have 
certain  credits  allowed.  Georgia  did  not  assume  it,  and  therefore  nothing 
in  their  cases  authorizes  the  raising  of  such  an  account  against  Georgia. 

Mr.  Lawrence  admits  that  this  action  of  his  predecessor  is  the  only 
obstacle,  and  that  it  is  not  in  the  way  of  payment  if  it  was  "  unauthorized 
or  void."  If  no  statute  authorized  it,  it  was  "  unauthorized."  No  statute 
created  such  a  debt  except  by  the  consent  of  the  State,  and  the  State  did 


,      187 

not  consent.  There  is  no  pretense  that  the  First  Comptroller  found  such 
fact  upon  inquiry.  It  is  only  stated  that  he  did  an  act  from  which  it  is 
inferred  that  he  found  such  fact.  But  that  does  not  follow;  for  he  may 
have  raised  the  account  for  other  reasons.  Congress  cannot  make  such  a 
debt  against  a  State  without  its  consent.  There  was  no  consent,  and  there- 
fore the  Act  raising  such  account,  when  considered  whether  that  Act  made 
Georgia  the  debtor,  is  "void." 

We  admit  that  "  all  claims  or  demands  whatever  by  the  United  States 
*  *  *  shall  be  settled  and  adjusted  in  the  Department  of  the  Treasury  '^ 
(Rev.  Stat.,  §  236).  But  there  must  be  a  claim  of  demand  to  adjust.  The' 
statute  declared  there  could  be  none  against  a  State  till  it  assented,  and 
Georgia  nevOT  assented.  So,  while  the  Second  Comptroller  must  "  examine 
all  accounts"  settled  by  the  Auditors  (lb.,  273),  and  the  First  Auditor 
"must  examine  all  accounts  accruing  in  the  Treasury  Department"  (lb., 
277) ;  there  must  be  a  debtor,  by  law,  before  an  account  can  exist  for 
examination. 

It  is  useless  to  examine  whether  Congress  "  may  so  far  declare  a  State 
indebted  to  the  United  States  as  to  secure  satisfaction  of  the  debt  by  with- 
holding from  it  by  set-off,  as  in  this  case,  money  admitted  to  be  due  from 
the  United  States  to  such  State,"  for  Congress  has  never  made  such  decla- 
ration. Nor  need  we  discuss  whether  Congress  had  power  "  to  enforce  the 
collection  of  tax  against  the  corporate  property  of  the  State,"  though  Mr. 
Lawrence  said  "  the  power  to  do  so  in  time  of  war  seems  undoubted."  Mr. 
Thaddeus  Stevens,  when  he  presented  the  direct  tax  bill  to  Congress,  in 
the  midst  of  war  and  to  raise  means  promptly  to  prosecute  the  war,  said 
"Congress  has  no  constitutional  power  to  assess  taxes  upon  a  State.  It 
must  assess  it  upon  the  individual  (Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  24,  ante,  page  41).  And 
the  Act  levying  the  tax  expressly  exempted  all  State  property.  It  sought 
not  to  exercise  such  power  if  it  existed. 

Suppose  we  admit  that  Congress  might  legislate  as  the  eighth  head- 
note  declares;  Congress  has  not  so  legislated  in  this  case.  On  the  contrary, 
an  effort  to  have  it  so  legislate  was  defeated.  On  the  sixth  of  December, 
1882,  the  bill  was  reached  and  taken  up  in  the  House. 

Mr.  Holman,  as  soon  as  the  report  had  been  read,  said: 

The  question  is  presented  whether  or  not  this  sum  should  be  paid  by  the  United  States 
directly  to  the  State  of  Georgia,  or  whether  it  shall  be  allowed  as  a  credit  to  that  State  on 
the  amount  of  direct  tax  apportioned  against  the  State  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861. 

Mr.  Turner  replied: 

The  direct  tax  is  a  tax  due  by  the  people  of  the  State,  not  by  the  State  in  its  corporate 
or  aggregate  capacity,  etc.    (Congressional  Record,  vol.  59,  page  59.) 

The  issue  thus  made  was  debated  pro  and  con.  Mr.  Holman  moved  to 
add  to  the  bill — 

Provided,  however,  that  the  said  sum,  $35,555  42,  shall  not  be  paid  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  until  the  sum  due  the  United  States  of  direct  taxes  apportioned  to  the  State  of 
Georgia  under  the  Act  entitled  "  An  Act  to  provide  increased  revenue  from  imports  to 
pay  the  interest  on  the  public  debt,  and  for  other  purposes,"  approved  August  5, 1861, 
shall  have  been  adjusted.    {lb.,  65.) 

A  motion  to  strike  out  the  enacting  clause  was  lost;  the  ayes  were  fifty- 
two  and  the  nays  were  seventy-six. 

Mr.  Holman's  proposed  amendment  was  also  lost  by  ayes  fifty-three  to 
nays  ninety.     An  effort  to  adjourn  was  lost  by  eighty  nays  to  fifty  yeas. 


188 

Upon  the  passage  of  the  bill  the  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  and  it 
was  passed  by  yeas  ninety-six  to  nays  eighty.  {lb.,  68.)  The  report  was 
read  in  the  Senate,  and  the  bill  passed  without  debate.  (Congressional 
Record,  vol.  62,  pp.  3660,  3670-3672.) 

Again,  we  think  the  payments  made  to  the  State  of  Georgia,  aforesaid, 
were  at  least  waivers  of  any  such  claim  by  the  United  States  as  is  here 
asserted,  and  did  set  aside  and  render  inoperative  said  certification  of  the 
account  in  May,  1868,  if  it  ever  were  operative  for  the  purpose  claimed. 

Mr.  Lawrence  does  not  claim  that  the  decision  of  his  predecessor  was 
correct.  He  seems  to  admit,  in  the  opinion,  that  he  would  reverse  it  if  he 
thought  he  could.  He  really  suggests  this  legislation  in  his  annual  report 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1883.     His  language  was  this: 

In  1868  the  First  Comptroller  then  in  office  certified  balances  due  to  the  United  States 
from  the  several  States  respectively,  for  direct  taxes  due  and  unpaid,  under  the  direct  tax 
Act  of  August  5,  1861  (12  Stat.,  292),  and  such  States  were  accordingly  debited  on  the  books 
in  the  office  of  the  Register  of  the  Treasury.  It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  any  cor- 
porate State  was  properly  so  charged,  but  as  the  Comptroller  had  jurisdiction  of  the  sub- 
ject-matter, his  action,  even  if  erroneous,  cannot  be  treated  as  void  by  the  Comptroller 
now  in  office.  The  result  is,  that  money  due,  or  which  may  become  due,  from  the  United 
States  to  any  State  so  charged,  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  so  ch^arged,  cannot  be  paid  to 
the  State,  but,  by  usage  and  law  is  to  be  applied  by  way  of  set-ofF.  It  may  thus  happen 
that  some  States  will  in  this  mode  pay  the  direct  tax,  while  others  indebted  in  the  same 
form  will  continue  so  indebted,  and  nence  there  will  seem  to  be  inequality,  if  not  injustice, 
in  the  dealings  between  the  United  States  and  such  States.  The  monejr  appropriated  by 
the  Act  of  March  3, 1883  (22  Stat.,  485),  "to  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain  money 
expended  by  said  State  for  the  common  defense  in  1877,"  was  withheld  and  applied  by 
way  of  set-off  on  the  sum  charged  against  said  State  for  direct  taxes.  If  it  be  the  purpose 
of  Congress  that  moneys  due  to  such  States  shall  be  paid,  it  is  respectfully  suggested  that 
provision  should  be  made  authorizing  payment  without  reference  to  the  charge  against 
any  such  States. 

Suppose  this  money  cannot  be  paid,  and  that  Mr.  Lawrence  is  right  that 
the  judicial  Courts  or  Congress  can  furnish  the  only  relief  in  such  case,  if 
the  Comptroller  erred  in  charging  the  State  with  such  liability;  still  this 
bill  should  pass,  and  for  that  very  reason.  The  United  States  admits  this 
indebtedness  to  Georgia;  it  admits  Georgia  is  not  in  debt  to  the  United 
States,  and  it  has  formally  undertaken  to  pay  this  debt  to  Georgia.  Why 
should  she  be  remitted  to  the  Court  of  Claims?    We  see  no  reason  therefor. 

By  reason  of  a  real  or  supposed  obstacle,  unknown  to  Congress  when  the 
bill  for  payment  was  passed,  the  debt  of  the  United  States  has  not  been 
paid.  An  officer  of  the  United  States  erroneously  put  that  obstacle  in"  the 
way.  It  should  be  removed,  unless  there  is  some  other  reason  to  the  con- 
trary. 

Is  there  any?  There  is  none,  unless  the  United  States  should  refuse  to 
pay  simply  because  Georgia  did  not  pay  the  direct  tax.  Laying  aside  the 
question  whether  this  tax  Act  was  operative  within  the  States  with  which 
the  United  States  was  then  at  war,  a  refusal  on  that  ground  seems  to  be 
unjust  for  these  and  other  reasons  :  Georgia  does  not  owe  the  debt  to  the 
United  States,  but,  at  most,  parts  of  it  are  due  from  certain  of  her  citizens 
respectively.  Only  those  citizens  who  in  1861  owned  the  lands  taxed  owe 
the  taxes,  and  no  property  is  bound  for  the  tax  except  those  lands.  If 
Secretary  McCullogh  was  right  in  his  Texas  decision,  ante,  and  Mr.  Porter 
was  right  in  the  Georgia  case,  ante,  Georgia  could  not,  after  a  fixed  day  in 
1862,  assume  the  debts  if  she  wished.  Georgia  cannot  collect  these  taxes 
without  such  assumption. 

It  does  not  seem  just  to  collect  from  Georgia,  as  a  State,  any  part  of  a 
debt  she  does  not  owe,  nor  from  her,  as  representing  the  land  owners  of 
1861,  by  withholding  money  which  belongs  to  Georgia  as  a  State,  and  if,  as 


189 

representing  any  citizens,  as  representing  all  her  citizens,  whether  owning 
lands  in  1861  or  anything  else  at  any  time. 

It  does  not  seem  that  the  United  States  will  ever  collect  those  direct 
taxes  of  1861.  But  could  it  and  should  it  determine  to  do  so,  equal  col- 
lections should  he  made  from  all  the  Southern  States  simultaneously.  To 
make  Georgia  pay  indirectly  by  withholding  from  her  admitted  dues  from 
the  United  States  has  not  been  the  policy  of  the  Government,  as  appears 
from  the  payments  already  of  over  a  quarter  of  a  million  of  dollars  to  her 
in  cash  since  said  account  was  raised  in  1868.  We  do  not  think  it  should 
become  the  policy  of  the  Government;  therefore  we  recommend  that  the 
bill  do  pass.  . 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    Senate  Report  No.  124. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  February  6,  1884 — Ordered  to  be 
printed. 

Mr.  Hoar,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  S.  595.] 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (S.  595)  to 
.repay  the  State  of  Georgia  $27,175  50,  money  advanced  by  said  State  for 
the  defense  of  her  frontiers  against  the  Indians,  from  1795  to  1818,  and  not 
heretofore  repaid,  have  considered  the  same,  and  respectfully  report : 

The  committee  adopt  the  report  made  by  Mr.  Hoar,  from  the  Committee 
on  Claims,  February  8,  1882,  and  report  the  accompanying  bill  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  Senate  Bill  595,  and  recommend  its  passage. 

[Senate  Report,  No.  148,  Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.] 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (S.  270)  to  repay  to  the  State  of 
Georgia  $27,175  50,  money  advanced  by  said  State  for  the  defense  of  her  frontier  against 
the  Indians,  from  1795  to  1818,  and  not  heretofore  repaid,  have  considered  the  same,  and 
respectfully  report  that  a  bill  like  this  was  introduced  in  the  last  Congress,  and  referred 
by  the  Senate  to  this  committee.  Mr.  Hereford  made  the  following  report  by  authority  of 
the  committee : 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  to  repay  to  the  State  of  Georgia 
$27,175  50,  for  money  advanced  by  said  State  for  the  defense  of  her  frontiers  against  the 
Indians,  from  1795  to  1818,  and  not  heretofore  repaid,  have  had  the  same  under  considera- 
tion, and  make  the  following  report: 

The  State  of  Georgia  presents  an  account  for  money  expended  in  the  defense  of  her 
frontiers  against  hostile  Indians,  as  follows : 

In  the  years  1795-1800 $4,607  00 

In  the  years  1812-1814 1 16,801  38 

In  the  years  1817-1818 5,766  04 

Original  vouchers  on  which  Georgia  disbursed  said  sums,  except  for  the  first  item  of 
$4,607,  were  examined  by  the  committee  and  compared  with  the  account  certified  to  have 
been  paid  by  the  officials  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  stating  the  number  of  the  warrant,  name 
of  the  officer,  the  number  of  the  voucher,  page  in  the  Treasurer's  book,  and  the  amount 
paid ;  and  the  account  corresponded  with  the  vouchers  in  every  particular,  with  the  before- 
mentioned  exception.  From  these  proofs  the  committee  find  due  and  unpaid  the  State  of 
Georgia  the  sum  of  $22,567  42. 

The  bill  was  referred  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  asking  whether  any  of  the  items 
contained  therein  have  been  paid  by  any  special  or  general  Act  of  Congress,  or  by  anj*  of 
the  proper  departments,  and  if  there  is  any  reason  why  they  should  not  be  paid,  and  the 
following  reply  was  received,  which  is  made  a  part  of  this  report : 


190 

Treasury  Department,  December  15,  1880. 

Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  communication  of  the  eleventh  instant,  inclosing  bill  for  the  relief 
of  the  State  of  Georgia,  and  asking  to  be  informed  whether  any  of  the  items  contained 
therein  have  been  paid  by  any  special  or  general  Act  of  Congress,  or  by  any  of  the  proper 
departments,  and  if  there  is  any  reason  why  they  should  not  be  paid,  1  have  the  honor  to 
inform  you  that  the  Second  Auditor  of  the  Treasury  reports  that  the  claim  of  the  State  of 
Georgia  for  repayment  of  $27,175  50  advanced  for  the  defense  of  her  frontier  against  Indians 
from  1795  to  1818  has  not  been  paid  through  his  office;  that  the  greater  portion  of  the 
time  covered  by  the  account  is  prior  to  the  organization  of  his  office  (March  3,  1817),  and 
that  the  records  thereof  do  not  afford  any  information  bearing  upon  the  validity  of  the 
claim.  Further,  that  the  Third  Auditor  reports  that  the  records  or  his  office  do  not  show 
that  the  said  claim  has  been  paid,  or  the  claim  been  filed  since  it  was  withdrawn  March  4, 
1858,  and  invites  attention  to  the  letter  of  his  office  of  January  22,  1880,  in  relation  to  the 
subject,  a  copy  of  which  is  inclosed  herewith. 

The  papers  accompanying  your  letter  are  returned  herein. 
Very  respectfully, 

JOHN  SHERMAN,  Secretary. 

Hon.  Frank  Hereford,  United  States  Senate. 

Treasury  Department,  Third  Auditor's  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  January  22,  1880.         5 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  seventeenth 
instant,  requesting  information  relative  to  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Georgia  for  militia 
expenses  from  December,  1795,  to  August,  1827. 

In  reply  I  have  to  state  that  it  appears  from  the  records  of  this  office  that  "William  M. 
Varnum,'  Esq.,  as  agent  for  the  State  of  Georgia,  filed  in  this  office  a  claim  for  payment  to 
certain  commissioned  officers  from  1795  to  1818,  on  the  sixteenth  of  February,  1858  (No. 
2862).  On  the  twenty-third  of  February,  1858,  the  agent  withdrew  vouchers  numbered  43, 
64,  65,  66,  67,  68,  69,  70,  71,  72,  and  75,  for  payments  of  services  since  1815,  for  reference  to 
the  Second  Auditor.    These  vouchers  (pay-rolls)  amounted  to  $10,718  26. 

The  whole  amount  filed  February  16,  1858,  was  $49,056  39,  and  the  balance  of  the  claim 
was  withdrawn  from  this  office  March  4,  1858,  by  said  agent,  as  will  more  fully  be  seen  by 
reference  to  the  letter  of  this  office  to  him  of  that  date  herewith  inclosed,  marked  Exhibit 
A.  There  is  no  evidence  on  file  in  this  office  that  the  State  of  Georgia  has  since  that  time 
presented  these  claims,  for  settlement,  to  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury. 

The  claims  withdrawn  by  the  agent  for  reference  to  the  Second  Auditor  have  not  been 
returned  to  this  office,  and  this  office  has  no  official  knowledge  of  the  action  of  the  Second 
Auditor  thereon.    The  certified  copy  of  abstract  and  letter  of  Hon.  R.  J.  Atkinson,  dated 
March  4, 1858  (marked  Exhibit  A),  herewith  returned. 
I  am,  very  respectfully, 

E.  W.  KEIGHTLEY,  Auditor. 

W.  O.  Tuggle,  Agent  for  the  State  of  Georgia,  Washington,  D.  C. 

That  the  protection  of  the  several  States  and  the  citizens  thereof  from  Indian  hostilities 
is,  and  has  been  from  the  organization  of  the  Federal  Government,  a  duty  and  a  charge 
incumbent  on  the  United  States,  and  when,  in  the  absence  of  such  protection,  the  States 
themselves  have  made  necessary  expenditures  for  this  purpose  they  should  be  reimbursed, 
are  principles  well  founded  in  law  and  justice,  and  fully  sanctioned  by  an  unbroken  line 
of  precedents. 

As  the  original  vouchers  for  the  expenditure  of  $4,607,  in  the  years  1795  to  1800  inclusive, 
were  not  furnished  to  the  committee,  said  sum  is  not  allowed. 

The  committee  recommend  the  passage  of  the  bill  with  the  following  amendments: 
Strike  out  "$27,175  50"  and  insert  "$22,567  42,"  also  strike  out  "  1795"  and  insert  "  1812." 

It  appears  from  the  papers  accompanying  the  bill  that  the  original  vouchers  were  mis- 
laid, and  only  discovered  during  the  administration  of  Governor  J.  E.  Brown,  in  1857; 
that  they  were  forwarded  and  presented  for  payment,  and  were  pending  before  Congress 
in  1861,  and  by  order  of  the  Senate  in  January,  1879,  the  vouchers  and  papers  were  delivered 
to  the  agent  of  the  State  of  Georgia. 

We  adopt  Mr.  Hereford's  statement  of  the  facts,  but,  for  greater  security  in  the  case  of 
a  claim  so  old,  we  prefer  to  recommend  a  bill  providing  that  the  claim  be  audited  in  the 
Treasury  Department  before  payment. 

We  therefore  report  the  accompanying  bill  as  a  substitute  for  Senate  bill  and  recom- 
mend its  passage. 


EXHIBIT  No.  24. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  7032.    Printer's  No.,  8269.    Report  No.  1658. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.    May  20, 1884 — Read  twice,  committed 
to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 


191 

Mr.  Hammond,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  reported  the  fol- 
lowing bill  as  a  substitute  for  H.  R.  6867: 

A  BILL 

To  prevent  the  claim  of  the  war  taxes  under  the  Act  of  August  fifth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-one,  and  Acts  amendatory  thereof,  by  the  United  States, 
as  set-off  against  States  having  claims  against  the  General  Government. 

Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  other  person  charged  with  or  concerned  in  the 
payment  of  any  sum  of  money  from  the  United  States  to  any  State  of  the 
Union,  to  withhold  the  same  from  such  State,  or  its  duly  authorized  agent, 
by  reason  of  any  claim  that  such  State  is  bound  for  any  part  of  the  war  tax 
levied  by  the  Act  of  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  or  any 
Act  amendatory  thereof,  or  to  treat  the  said  tax  in  any  way  as  a  set-off 
against  any  claim  in  favor  of  any  State. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  laws  or  parts  of  laws,  and  all  rulings  or  decisions  of 
any  department  of  the  Government,  or  of  any  officer  thereof,  inconsistent 
"with  the  foregoing  section,  be  and  are  hereby  repealed  and  annulled. 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  No.  1658. 

CLAIMS  OF  THE  STATES  AGAINST  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

May  20,  1884 — Committed  to  .the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House,  and 
ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Hammond,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  submitted  the 
following 

report' 

[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  7082.] 

The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R. 
7082),  to  adjust  the  claims  of  the  States  against  the  United  States,  submit 
the  following  report: 

The  obstacles  in  the  way  of  paying  claims  of  the  States  against  the 
General  Government  growing  out  of  the  charge  of  the  direct  war  tax 
against  the  States  on  the  books  of  the  Treasury  Department,  and  the 
opinions  of  Treasury  officials  thereon,  as  well  as  the  reasons  why  those 
obstacles  should  be  removed,  are  set  forth  in  Report  No.  752  of  this  session 
of  Congress  in  the  Georgia  case,  made  on  the  — th  of  March,  1884. 

Your  committee  believe  that  the  relief  therein  recommended  for  that 
State  should  be  general  as  to  all  the  States  against  which  such  set-off  of 
war  taxes  is  being  or  may  be  claimed,  and  report  accordingly.  They, 
however,  report  a  substitute  for  Bill  H.  R.  6867,  and  recommend  the 
passage  of  the  substitute  herewith  submitted. 


EXHIBIT  No.  25. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.    May  28,  1884— Ordered  to  be 
printed.. 


192 

Mr.  Hoar,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  following  report, 
to  accompany  bill  S.  1948  : 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (S.  1948)  to 
require  the  payment  in  cash  to  the  State  of  Georgia  of  $35,555  42,  appro- 
priated for  said  State  by  an  Act  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain 
money  expended  by  said  State  for  the  common  defense  in  1777,  approved 
March  3,  1883,  have  considered  the  same,  and  respectfully  report : 

The  last  Congress  passed  an  Act  approved  March  3,  1883,  to  refund  to 
the  State  of  Georgia  certain  moneys  expended  by  her  for  the  common 
defense  in  1777,  the  evidence  of  which  expenditure,  having  been  lost  for 
many  years,  had  recently  been  discovered.  The  accounting  officers  of 
the  Treasury  declined  to  pay  over  to  Georgia  the  money  so  appropriated, 
but  claimed  that  it  should  be  set  off  against  moneys  due  from  that  State 
as  her  share  of  the  direct  tax  assessed  during  the  late  rebellion. 

We  do  not  think  that  it  was  the  expectation  of  Congress  that  such  a 
set-off  would  be  required,  or  that  it  is  intended  to  enforce  against  any 
delinquent  State  the  payment  in  money  of  its  share  of  such  tax.  All  the 
States  which  took  part  in  the  rebellion  we  suppose  to  be  so  delinquent.  If 
matters  should  be  left  as  they  now  are,  it  would  be  unjust  to  Georgia  to 
withhold  from  her  the  sum  due  to  her  and  thereby  indirectly  to  compel 
the  payment  of  a  part  of  said  tax  from  which  the  other  Southern  States 
are  relieved.  If,  on  the  other  hand.  Congress  shall  reimburse  to  the  States 
the  amounts  which  have  been  paid  by  them  equal  justice  will  have  been 
rendered  to  all,  and  there  will  be  no  propriety  in  withholding  from  Georgia 
the  sum  now  in  question,  which  is  her  due. 

We  therefore  recommend  the  passage  of  the  bill. 


EXHIBIT  No.  26. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  1948. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.    May  28, 1884 — Ordered  to  be  printed. 

AMENDMENT 

Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Dolph  to  the  bill  (S.  1948)  to  require 
the  payment  in  cash  to  the  State  of  Georgia  of  thirty-five  thousand  five 
hundred  and  fifty-five  dollars  and  forty-two  cents,  appropriated  for  said 
State  by  an  Act  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain  money  expended 
by  said  State  for  the  common  defense  in  seventeen  hundred  and  seventy- 
seven,  approved  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-three,  viz::  In 
Section  1,  at  the  end  of  line  12,  insert  the  following: 

And  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and 
directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Oregon"  the  sum  of  thirty-five  thousand  one 
hundred  and  forty  dollars  and  sixty-seven  cents,  and  to  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia the  sum  of  four  hundred  and  ninety-five  dollars  and  seventy-two 
cents,  for  moneys  paid  by  said  States  in  suppressing  Modoc  Indian  hostili- 
ties during  the  Modoc  war,  and  in  defending  said  States  from  invasion  by 
said  Indians  during  the  years  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-two  and 
eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-three;  and  the  said  sums  are  hereby  appro- 
priated for  such  purpose  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise 
appropriated,  and  which  sums  were  appropriated  for  the  States  of  Oregon 
and  California  by  an  Act  to  reimburse  said  States,  and  the  citizens  thereof, 
in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  during  the  Modoc  war  in  eighteen 


193 

hundred  and  seventy-two  and  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-three,  in  the 
Act  of  Congress  approved  January  sixth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty- 
three. 

EXHIBIT  No.  27. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  1948. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  June  16, 1884 — Ordered  to  he  on  the 
table  and  be  printed. 

AMENDMENT 

Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Miller  of  California,  to  the  bill  (S.  1948) 
to  require  the  payment  in  cash  to  the  State  of  Georgia  of  thirty-five  thousand 
five  hundred  and  fifty-five  dollars  and  forty-two  cents,  appropriated  for  said 
State  by  an  Act  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain  money  expended  by 
said  State  for  the  common  defense  in  seventeen  hundred  and  seventy-seven, 
approved  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-three,  viz.:  Strike  out 
all  after  the  enacting  clause,  and  insert  the  following: 

That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and 
directed  to  credit  each  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  and  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia  with  amounts  of  money  heretofore  laid  upon  and 
apportioned  to  said  States,  Territories,  and  District  of  Columbia,  respect- 
ively, levied  as  a  direct  tax  under  the  provisions  of  the  eighth  section  of 
the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- 
one,  entitled  "  An  Act  to  provide  increased  revenue  from  imports,  to  pay 
interest  on  the  public  debt,  and  for  other  purposes;"  and  he  shall  thereafter 
state  an  account  between  the  United  States  and  each  of  said  States,  Terri- 
tories, and  District,  respectively,  and  he  shall  pay  to  each  thereof,  out  of 
any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  such  sums  of  money 
as  may  appear  to  the  credit  of  each  thereof  upon  the  books  of  the  Treasury 
arising  from  such  settlements. 

Amend  the  title  so  as  to  read:  "An  Act  to  adjust  certain  accounts 
between  the  United  States  and  the  several  States  and  Territories  and  the 
District  of  Columbia." 

EXHIBIT  No.  28. 

SENATE  CONCURRENT  RESOLUTION  No.  26. 

Requesting  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  to  give  their 
support  to  certain  measures  now  pending  in  Congress,  or  such  as  may  here- 
after be  presented  thereto,  designed  to  feffect  the  proper  adjustment  of  the 
accounts  of  the  different  States,  Territories,  and  the  District  of  Columbia 
with  the  United  States,  arising  out  of  the  proceedings  under  the  "  direct 
tax"  law  of  August  5,  1861  (adopted  March  3,  1885). 

Whereas,  under  the  pro^dsions  of  the  law  of  August  5,  1861,  a  direct  tax 
of  $20,000,000  was  levied  for  war  purposes  by  the  United  States  and  appor- 
tioned to  the  various  States  and  Territories  of  the  Union  and  the  District 
of  Columbia,  according  to  their  respective  populations;  and  whereas,  the 
amount  of  said  tax  so  apportioned  to  the  State  of  California  was  paid  by 
the  State  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  said  law;  and  whereas,  while 
part  of  the  other  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia  have, 
like  California,  paid  in  full  the  tax  thus  apportioned  to  them,  respectively, 
13"^ 


194 

many  of  those  remaining  have  only  paid  in  part,  and  some  have  paid 
nothing  at  all;  and  whereas,  by  such  reason  of  such  partial  collection  of 
said  taxes  (as  shown  by  the  official  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
dated  June  14,  1884)  over  $5,000,000  of  the  same  remains  unpaid,  and  now 
stands  charged  on  the  books  of  the  Treasury  against  the  States  and  Terri- 
tories delinquent,  according  to  the  measure  of  their  respective  delinquencies; 
and  whereas,  while,  by  the  Act  of  Congress,  the  operation  of  said  law  as 
to  the  collection  of  said  tax  has  long  been  suspended,  still  the  interest  and 
penalties  thereby  required  to  be  collected,  have  been  permitted  to  accumu- 
late, until  now  the  amount  of  the  original  levy,  where  delinquent,  has 
almost  quadrupled;  and  whereas,  to  enforce  collection  of  such  unpaid  tax, 
penalties,  and  costs  would,  in  the  language  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
'^  put  a  grievous  burden  upon  the  people  of  the  States  which  are  in  default 
of  payment;"  and  therefore,  in  the  words  of  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treas- 
ury, "  it  is  believed  that  there  is  no  desire  now,  on  the  part  of  any  class  of 
citizens,  that  the  payment  of  this  tax  should  be  enforced;"  and  whereas, 
it  is  contemplated  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  is  required 
by  the  principles  of  common  justice,  that  "taxes  should  be  uniform 
throughout  the  United  States,"  and  that  it  would  be  violative  of  both  to 
compel  the  payment  of  such  levy  by  part  of  the  United  States  and  Terri- 
tories while  others  were  exempt  from  such  burden;  and  whereas,  measures 
are  now  pending  in  both  branches  of  the  present  Congress  (being  House 
Bill  No.  110,  and  Senate  No.  795),  which  provides  for  the  adjustment  of 
this  whole  question,  by  authorizing  the  refunding  to  the  States  and  Terri- 
tories which  have  paid  any  or  all  of  said  tax  the  amount  so  paid,  and  the 
cancellation  of  all  charges  on  account  of  delinquency  against  such  States 
and  Territories  as  have  not  paid  the  same;  and  whereas,  the  method  of 
adjustment  proposed  by  said  bills  has  the  hearty  approval  and  indorsement 
of  the  Secretary  and  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  to  whom  said  bills  were 
referred  by  the  committees  of  Congress  considering  the  same  for  their  effi- 
cient examination  and  report;  and  whereas,  approving  said  plan  of  adjust- 
ment as  being  in  its  nature  a  measure  of  relief  to  the  States  in  default,  and 
one  of  simple  justice  to  those  which  have  paid,  and  in  view  of  the  impor- 
tant interests  therein  involved  to  the  State  of  California;  therefore. 

Be  it  resolved  by  the  Senate,  the  Assembly  concurring,  That  our  Senators 
and  Representatives  in  Congress  be  requested  to  urge  the  passage  of  the 
bills  hereinbefore  referred  to,  or  other  measures  having  the  same  object  in 
view,  and  to  use  their  best  endeavors,  in  cooperation  with  the  agent  of  this 
State  and  in  support  of  his  efforts,  to  thus  secure  to  the  State  the  amount 
paid  by  her  on  account  of  said  tax. 

Be  it  further  resolved,  That  a  copy  of  the  above  preamble  and  resolution 
be  sent,  by  the  Governor  of  this  State,  to  our  Senators  and  Representatives 
in  Congress,  and  to  our  State  agent. 

State  of  California,  Department  of  State. 

I,  Thomas  L.  Thompson,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of  California,  do 
hereby  certify  that  I  have  carefully  compared  the  annexed  copy  of  Senate 
Concurrent  Resolutions  Nos.  25  and  26,  adopted  by  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  California  March  5, 1885,  with  the  original  now  on  file  in  my  office, 
and  the  same  is  a  correct  transcript  therefrom  and  of  the  whole  thereof. 
Also  that  this  authentication  is  in  due  form  and  by  the  proper  officer. 

Witness  my  hand  and  the  great  seal  of  State,  at  office  in  Sacramento, 
California,  the  ninth  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1886. 

[seal.]  T.  L.  THOMPSON, 

Secretary  of  State. 

By  A.  E.  Shattuck,  Deputy. 


195 
EXHIBIT  No.  29. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  164. 

In  the   House  of  Representatives.     December  21,  1885 — Read  twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
.    Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  credit  and  pay  to  the  several  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of 
Columbia  all  moneys  collected  under  the  direct  tax  levied  by  the  Act  of  Con- 
gress approved  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  credit  to  each  State  and  Territory  of  the 
United  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  a  sum  equal  to  all  collections 
made  from  said  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia  under 
the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one, 
and  the  amendatory  Acts  thereto,  with  an  additional  sum  of  fifteen  per 
centum  upon  all  amounts  so  collected,  where  such  States  or  Territories  or 
the  District  of  Columbia  have  collected  the  same  without  cost  to  the  United 
States. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  moneys  still  due  to  the  United  States  on  the  quota  of 
direct  tax  apportioned  by  section  eight  of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved 
August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  are  hereby  remitted  and 
relinquished. 

Sec.  3.  That  there  are  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the 
Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  such  sums  as  may  be  necessary  to 
reimburse  each  State,  Territory,  and  the  District  of  Columbia  for  all  money 
found  due  to  them  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act;  and  the  Treasurer  of 
the  United  States  is  hereby  directed  to  pay  the  same;  provided,  that  where 
the  sums,  or  any  part  thereof,  credited  to  any  State,  Territory,  or  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  has  been  collected  from  any  citizen  thereof,  either  directly 
or  by  sale,  resale,  or  lease  of  property,  such  sums  shall  be  held  in  trust  by 
such  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  for  the  benefit  of  those  of 
its  citizens  from  whom  it  was  collected,  or  their  legal  representatives. 


EXHIBIT  No.  30. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R,  2776. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.  January  7, 1886— Read  twice,  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  (With  pro- 
posed amendments.) 

Mr.  Price  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  credit  and  pay  the  several  States  and  Territories,  and  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia, all  moneys  collected  under  the  direct  tax  levied  by  the  Act  of  Congress 
approved  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 


196 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  credit  to  each  State  and  Territory  of  the 
United  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  a  sum  equal  to  all  collections 
made  from  said  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia  under 
the  Act  of  Congress,  approved  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- 
one,  and  the  amendatory  Acts  thereto,  with  such  additional  credits  as 
under  said  Act  they  are  entitled  to  have  in  consequence  of  having  paid 
any  portion  thereof  without  expense  of  collection  to  the  United  States;  and 
such  sums  also  as  have  been  collected  from  lands  or  owners  thereof  under 
supplemental  Acts  on  any  account  whatever. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  moneys  still  due  to  the  United  States,  on  the  quota  of 
direct  tax  apportioned  by  section  eight  of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved 
August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  are  hereby  remitted  and 
relinquished. 

Sec.  8.  That  there  is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the 
Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  such  sums  as  may  be  necessary  to 
reimburse  each  State,  Territory,  and  the  District  of  Columbia  for  all  money 
found  due  to  them  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act;  and  the  Treasurer  of 
the  United  States  is  hereby  directed  to  pay  the  same;  provided,  that  when 
the  sums,  or  any  part  thereof,  credited  to  any  State,  Territory,  or  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  have  been  collected  from  any  citizen  thereof,  either  directly 
or  by  sale,  resale,  or  lease  of  property,  such  sums  shall  be  held  in  trust  by 
such  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  for  the  benefit  of  those 
of  its  citizens  from  whom  it  was  collected,  or  their  legal  representatives. 


EXHIBIT  No.  31. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  995. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  January  11,  1886 — Mr.  Stanford 
introduced  the  following  bill,  which  was  read  twice,  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary: 

A  BILL 

To  credit  and  pay  to  the  several  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  u)f 
Columbia  all  moneys  collected  under  the  direct  tax  levied  by  the  Act  of 
Congress  approved  August  fifth ^  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  credit  to  each  State  and  Territory  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  a  sum  equal  to  all  collections 
made  from  said  States  and  Territories  and  District  of  Columbia  under  the 
Act  of  Congress  approved  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one, 
and  the  amendatory  Acts  thereto,  with  an  additional  sum  of  fifteen  per 
centum  upon  all  amounts  so  collected  where  such  States  or  Territories  or 
the  District  of  Columbia  have  collected  the  same  without  cost  to  the 
United  States. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  moneys  still  due  to  the  United  States  on  the  quota  of 
direct  tax  apportioned  by  section  eight  of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved 
August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  are  hereby  remitted  and 
relinquished. 

Sec.  3.  That  there  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the 
Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated  such  sums  as  may  be  necessary  to 
reimburse  each  State,  Territory,  and  the  District  of  Columbia  for  all  money 


197 

found  due  to  them  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  and  the  Treasurer  of  the 
United  States  is  hereby  directed  to  pay  the  same;  provided,  that  where  the 
sums,  or  any  part  thereof,  credited  to  any  State,  Territory,  or  the  District 
of  Columbia,  have  been  collected  from  the  citizens  thereof,  either  directly 
or  by  sale  of  property,  such  sums  shall  be  held  in  trust  by  such  State, 
Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia  for  the  benefit  of  those  of  its  citizens 
from  whom  they  were  collected,  or  their  legal  representatives. 


EXHIBIT  No.  32. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  2457.    Calendar  No.  1310.    Report  No.  1138. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  May  18,  1886 — Mr.  George,  from 
the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  submitted  a  report  (No.  1138)  accompanied 
by  the  following  bill;  which  was  read  the  first  and  second  times,  by  unani- 
mous consent: 

A  BILL 

For  the  relief  of  the  State  of  Georgia. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury be  and  he  hereby  is  directed  to  pay,  in  lawful  money,  to  the  State  of 
Georgia,  the  sum  of  $35,555  42,  appropriated  to  said  State  by  an  Act  en- 
titled ''An  Act  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain  money  expended 
by  said  State  for  the  common  defense,"  approved  March  3,  1883,  notwith- 
standing any  claim  of  set-off  arising  from  the  direct  tax  apportioned  to  the 
State  of  Georgia,  by  an  Act  entitled  "An  Act  to  provide  increased  revenue 
from  imposts,  to  pay  interest  on  the  public  debt,  and  for  other  purposes." 


EXHIBIT  No.  33. 

Forty-nintli  Congress,  first  session.    Senate.    Report  No.  1138. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.    May  18, 1886 — Ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  George,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  submitted  the  follow- 
ing 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  S.  2457.] 

The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  whom  were  referred  certain  resolu- 
tions of  the  State  of  Georgia  in  relation  to  a  claim  of  the  State  against  the 
United  States,  submit  the  following  report,  with  accompanying  bill : 

By  an  Act  approved  March  3,  1883  (22  U.  S.  Stat.  L.,  p.  485)  Congress 
appropriated  to  the  State  of  Georgia  $35,555  42  to  reimburse  the  State  for 
an  expenditure  made  in  the  year  1777  for  the  common  defense,  that  claim 
never  having  before  been  paid  to  the  State.  The  accounting  officers  of  the 
Treasury  Department  have  declined  to  pay  this  sum  to  the  State  in 
money.  They  allege  as  the  ground  of  this  refusal  that  the  books  of  the 
Treasury  Department  show  that  the  State  of  Georgia  is  indebted  to  the 
United  States  in  the  sum  of  $501,939  86  for  a  balance  due  on  the  sum  of 
$584,367  34  apportioned  to  the  State  as  her  quota  of  $20,000,000,  direct 


198 

tax  levied  by  the  Act  of  August  5,1861  (12  U.  S.  Stat,  p.  294).  These  offi- 
cers claim  the  right  to  apply  the  said  sum  of  $35,555  42,  so  appropriated 
by  the  Act  of  March  3,  1883,  as  a  set-off  against  this  alleged  indebtedness 
of  the  State  of  Georgia. 

An  examination  of  the  printed  opinion  of  the  First  Comptroller  on  this 
subject  will  show  that  this  alleged  indebtedness  of  the  State  of  Georgia  is 
based  mainly  upon  the  fact  that  his  predecessor,  on  May  29, 1868,  certified 
to  the  Register  of  the  Treasury  that  the  State  of  Georgia  was  a  debtor  to 
the  United  States  to  the  amount  of  the  direct  tax  so  apportioned  to  her, 
-and  that  on  this  an  entry  was  made  on  the  books  of  the  Treasury  charging 
the  State  accordingly,  and  that  this  certificate  and  entry,  however  errone- 
ous they  may  be,  are  irreversible  by  the  Treasury  officials.  It  is  also 
insisted  that  this  charge  against  the  State  is  proper  and  legal  under  the 
Acts  of  Congress.  Against  this  the  State  of  Georgia  protests  through  reso- 
lutions of  her  Legislature,  and  insists  that  she  is  entitled  to  payment  in 
money.  These  resolutions  have  been  referred  to  the  committee,  and  they 
constitute  the  subject-matter  on  which  we  are  now  called  on  to  act. 

We  express  no  opinion  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  action  of  the  Treasury 
Department  in  holding  as  final,  so  far  as  it  is  concerned,  the  action  of  the 
Comptroller  in  1868,  in  causing  the  State  of  Georgia  to  be  entered  as  a 
debtor  to  the  United  States  on  the  books  of  the  Treasury,  as  above  stated. 

Our  inquiry  will  be  confined  to  the  question  raised,  as  to  the  reality 
and  lawfulness  of  the  alleged  indebtedness  on  the  part  of  the  State  in  its 
organized  and  corporate  capacity,  for  we  assume  that  it  will  not  be  contro- 
verted that  the  State  is  riot  liable  either  to  the  United  States  or  any  other 
person  or  corporation  for  the  separate  and  individual  debts  of  any  portion 
of  her  citizens,  or  even  of  all  of  them  if  the  demand  be  against  each  one 
separately  for  a  distinct  and  separate  share  of  the  aggregated  whole.  If 
there  be  no  legal  demand  against  Georgia  as  a  State,  in  her  organized 
political  capacity,  no  demand  which  she  is  bound  to  pay  out  of  her  Treas- 
ury, by  taxation  levied  according  to  her  laws  on  the  persons  and  property 
in  the  State  liable  to  taxation,  it  is  too  clear  for  controversy,  that  the  United 
States  cannot,  by  any  trick  in  bookkeeping  in  any  of  her  departments 
lawfully  refuse  to  pay  to  her  an  ascertained  and  acknowledged  debt  to  the 
State,  or  apply  it  as  a  set-off. 

A  set-off',  ex  vi  termini,  means  the  application  of  a  valid  legal  demand 
against  the  creditor  in  satisfaction  or  diminution  of  his  claim.  A  set-off 
actually  completed  implies  the  prior  existence  of  valid  and  lawful  de- 
mands between  the  creditor  and  debtor,  and  which  are  finally  settled  by 
the  transaction.  The  demand  against  the  creditor  must  be  against  him 
in  the  same  character  and  affecting  the  same  right  as  the  demand  against 
which  it  is  opposed.  A  demand  against  one  in  a  fiduciary  or  trust  rela- 
tion cannot  be  set-off  against  a  claim  which  he  asserts  in  his  individual 
and  personal  right,  and  vice  versa ;  and  a  demand  against  one  in  a  par- 
ticular fiduciary  character  cannot  be  set-off  against  a  claim  he  asserts  in 
a  different  fiduciary  relation.  A  set-off  is  allowable  only  because  it  is  a 
lawful  satisfaction  or  diminution  of  a  demand,  which  is  of  itself  property 
out  of  which  the  person  asserting  the  set-off  is  entitled  to  be  paid. 

An  acknowledged  debtor  cannot  therefore  rightfully  refuse  payment  of 
his  indebtedness  upon  any  ground  connected  with  the  right  of  set-off  unless 
he  can  show  he  has  a  valid  debt  against  his  creditor,  which  the  latter  owes 
to  him  in  the  same  character  and  in  the  same  right  in  which  the  creditor's 
debt  is  due. 

That  the  United  States  are  a  debtor  is  undisputed.  The  debt  to 
Georgia  is  acknowledged  by  statute  directing  it  to  be  paid.     Whether  the 


199 

State  of  Georgia  is  a  debtor  to  the  United  States  is  therefore  the  only 
question  to  be  settled. 

Whatever  may  be  the  effect  of  the  entry  on  the  books  of  the  Treasury 
Department,  made  in  1868,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  powers  and  duties  of 
the  accounting  officers  to  observe  or  to  disregard  it,  is  wholly  immaterial 
in  this  controversy.  Such  entry  is  the .  mere  ex  parte  act  of  one  of  the 
parties  or  its  agents.  It  does  not  bind  the  other,  either  in  law  or  in  morals. 
It  cannot  be  maintained  that  a  debt  can  be  created  by  a  wrongful  entry, 
whether  it  came  from  the  fraud  or  ignorance  of  the  officer  making  it.  Its 
legal  effect  and  force  depends  not  on  the  fact  of  entry,  but  on  its  rightful- 
ness and  legality.  The  State  of  Georgia  cannot  be  estopped  by  it,  nor 
affected  by  it  in  any  way,  for  the  State  was  no  party  to  it.  She  had  neither 
the  power  to  object  to  it  effectually,  nor  to  appeal  from  it. 

So  we  must  consider  the  question  as  if  such  entry  constituted  a  mere 
assertion  of  right  made  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  not  a  decision  or 
settlement  of  the  rights  of  Georgia.  We  must  look  into  the  case  as  if  no 
such  entry  had  been  made. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  inquire  whether  Congress  had  constitutional  power 
to  make  the  State  of  Georgia  a  debtor  to  the  United  States  on  account  of 
the  direct  tax,  if  it  shall  appear  that  the  Acts  of  Congress  do  not  attempt 
to  create  such  a  relation. 

An  examination  of  the  Act  of  August  5, 1861,  heretofore  cited,  will  make 
it  very  clear  that  the  intent  of  Congress  in  enacting  it  was  to  levy  a  tax  on 
individuals,  making  them  debtors  to  the  United  States  for  their  several  and 
separate  shares  after  they  were  ascertained  by  assessment.  The  thing 
taxed  was  land,  and  the  persons  who  were  to  pay  the  tax  were  the  owners 
of  the  land,  each  according  to  the  value  of  his  land,  as  compared  with  the 
value  of  all  land  within  the  State. 

Two  Acts  were  necessary  in  relation  to  the  apportionment  of  the  tax; 
one  was  to  be  done  by  Congress  itself,  and  the  other  under  their  authority^ 
and  according  to  rules  prescribed  by  them.  The  first  was  to  fix  the  total 
amount  to  be  collected  throughout  the  Union,  and  to  apportion  this  sum 
among  the  people  of  the  several  States.  The  second  was,  after  fixing  the 
sum  to  be  collected  in  each  State  from  the  owners  of  the  land  therein,  to 
apportion  this  sum  for  payment  among  the  land  owners  in  that  State.  By 
the  Constitution  the  apportionment,  as  between  the  States,  was  to  be  on 
the  basis  of  population,  without  reference  to  their  aggregate  or  individual 
wealth;  by  a  necessary  law  of  taxation,  the  apportionment  of  the  sum 
allotted  to  the  people  of  each  State  was  among  the  owners  of  the  property 
taxed,  and  according  to  the  value  of  the  property  owned  by  each. 

When  Congress  came  to  perform  this  last  act,  or  prescribe  rules  for  its 
performance,  they  provided,  in  unmistakable  language,  who  were  to  be  the 
debtors  for  the  tax.  If  the  States  were  to  be  the  debtors,  provision  would 
have  been  made  for  payment  by  the  States  out  of  their  Treasuries,  or  by 
State  action  in  some  way.  Nothing  else  would  have  been  necessary.  But 
this  course  was  not  pursued.  The  Act  carefully  provides  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  A-Ssessors  to  fix  the  share  of  each  taxpayer.  It  then  provides  for 
Collectors  to  enforce  collection  from  each  taxpayer.  All  the  ■  lands  in  the 
State,  with  inconsiderable  exceptions  (and  among  them  lands  owned  by 
the  State),  were  to  be  valued.  The  amount  due  for  each  tract  was  to  be 
charged  against  the  owner,  who  was  declared  to  be  "liable  to  pay  the 
direct  tax."  A  list  of  these,  together  "with  the  tax  payable  by  each,"  was 
required  to  be  made.  The  tax  was  to  be  demanded  of  the  taxpayers  at 
their  dwellings.  On  refusal  of  payment  the  personal  property  of  each 
delinquent  was  required  to  be  seized  and  sold  for  the  payment  of  his  tax. 


200 

If  no  personalty  could  be  found,  then  so  much  of  the  land  of  each  tax- 
payer was  required  to  be  sold  as  was  necessary  to  pay  the  tax  assessed 
against  him;  and  if  the  amount  was  not  bid,  then  the  Collector  was  to  bid 
the  amount  for  the  United  States,  and  buy  the  land  for  them.  The  sur- 
plus produced  by  a  sale  was  required  to  be  paid  to  the  owner,  and  he  and 
his  heirs  were  allowed  to  redeem.-  The  tax,  when  collected,  was  to  be  paid 
by  United  States  Collectors  into  the  United  States  Treasury. 

In  all  this  there  is  not  a  single  word  or  hint  that  Congress  regarded  the 
State  as  a  debtor,  or  that  the  State  was  in  any  way  to  have  any  agency  in 
or  responsibility  for  the  collection.  The  State,  so  far,  is  not  allowed  even 
to  pay  it  out  of  its  Treasury. 

In  the  fifty-third  section,  however,  the  States  are  mentioned,  but  in  terms 
which  necessarily  exclude  the  idea  that  Congress  intended  to  impose  a 
liability  on  them.  This  section,  among  other  things,  provides  "  that  any 
State  or  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  may  lawfully  assume,  assess, 
collect,  and  pay  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  the  direct  tax  or  its 
quota  imposed  by  this  Act;"  and  pro\dsion  is  made  for  notice  to  be  given 
of  this  assumption,  and  a  deduction  of  fifteen  per  cent  is  allowed  in  case 
of  prompt  payment.  This  is  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  the 
State  was  a  debtor  until  assumption  and  notice  of  it,  as  provided  in  this 
section;  but  this  is  made  still  plainer,  if  possible,  by  a  subsequent  pro- 
vision in  the  same  section,  where  it  is  enacted  that  the  quota  of  each 
"  shall  be  liable  to  be  paid  and  satisfied,  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  the  release 
of  such  State,  Territory,  or  District  of  Columbia,  duly  executed  to  the 
United  States,  of  any  determined  or  liquidated  demand  against  the  United 
States."  Here  the  right  of  set-off  is  allowed,  but  only  on  the  condition  that 
the  State  should  first  release  a  determined  and  liquidated  demand  against 
the  United  States.  In  the  case  of  Georgia  there  was  no  assumption  of  the 
tax,  and  no  release  nor  willingness  to  release  to  the  United  States  a  demand 
held  by  her.  To  say  now  that  the  State  is  a  debtor  reverses  and  abrogates 
all  these  various  provisions  of  the  statute,  clearly  proving  that  the  land 
owners,  and  not  the  State,  are  the  debtors. 

Plain  as  this  is,  it  is,  if  possible,  made  even  clearer  by  a  consideration 
of  the  Act  of  July  2,  1862  (12  U.  S.  Stat.,  p.  422),  in  relation  to  the  col- 
lection of  this  tax  in  the  insurrectionary  States,  of  which  Georgia  was  one. 
As  to  said  States,  this  Act  provides  that  whenever  any  portion  of  them 
shall  become  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  the  President 
may  provide  for  collecting  the  tax  in  such  portions;  that  the  lands  in  such 
parts  shall  be  charged  with  that  portion  of  the  tax  apportioned  to  the  State 
in  which  they  lie  as  their  value  should  bear  to  the  value  of  all  the  lands  in 
the  State,  as  shown  by  the  last  assessment  under  State  authority  prior  to 
1861.  The  Act  distinctly  and  clearly  provides  that,  on  payment  of  the 
tax  so  apportioned,  the  land  so  paid  on  shall  be  discharged  from  all  fur- 
ther liability  on  account  of  said  tax.  It  is  impossible  that  this  can  stand 
with  the  idea  that  the  tax  is  a  debt  against  the  State,  to  be  paid  out  of  its 
general  revenue,  or  out  of  debts  due  to  it,  which  are  but,  pro  tanto,  a  sub- 
stitute for  its  general  revenue;  since,  if  a  debt  be  lost,  or  in  any  way  should 
become  unavailable,  the  deficit  thereby  created  must  be  made  good  out  of 
the  general  revenues  of  the  State. 

Under  this  law,  as  appears  by  the  Comptroller's  report,  about  $70,000 
(or  about  one  eighth  of  the  tax)  has  been  paid;  and  the  lands  on  which 
this  payment  was  made  are  discharged  from  all  liability  on  account  of 
this  tax.  Now,  if  this  set-oft*  is  enforced  against  the  State,  then  the  amount 
is  lost  to  the  general  Treasury  of  the  State,  and  this  sum  would  have  to  be 
made  good  by  taxation  under  State  authority,  under  its  general  revenue 


201 

laws,  under  which  these  lands  would  be  equally  taxed  with  all  other  lands 
in  the  State.  And  thus  would  the  plighted  faith  of  the  United  States  to 
the  owners  of  these  lands  be  broken. 

Another  provision  in  this  Act  of  July  2, 1862,  shows  clearly  that  this  tax 
was  not  regarded  as  a  debt  against  the  State.  By  Section  12  of  the  Act  it 
is  provided  that  lands  bought  by  the  United  States  for  this  direct  tax 
should  be  sold,  and  one  half  the  proceeds  should  be  paid  to  the  State — one 
fourth  to  indemnify  loyal  citizens  for  losses  sustained  in  war,  and  the  other 
fourth  to  be  used  by  the  State  in  removing  persons  (willing  to  go)  of  Afri- 
can descent  to  Hayti  or  Liberia.  If  the  State  was  regarded  as  a  debtor  to 
the  United  States  to  the  whole  amount  of  the  uncollected  tax,  it  seems 
strange  that  money  accruing  in  the  attempt  to  enforce  the  collection  of  the 
tax  should  be  directed  to  be  paid  to  the  State. 

Again,  this  tax  is  a  tax  on  land;  and  it  could  not  have  been  apportioned 
among  the  States  as  this  was,  except  as  a  direct  tax  on  land.  Being  a  tax 
on  land,  no  other  property  but  land  could  be  taxed  under  the  law,  and  no 
other  persons  but  land  owners  made  liable  to  pay  it.  The  statute  recog- 
nizes this,  and  proceeds,  as  we  have  shown,  on  this  theory,  and  on  that 
alone.  Of  the  1,500,000  people  of  Georgia  in  1862,  when  this  tax  was 
required  to  be  assessed  and  paid,  probably  not  more  than  twenty-five  thou- 
sand were  land  owners,  or  could  be  made  liable  to  pay  the  tax.  It  has 
been  shown  that  the  true  intent  of  this  Act  was  to  make  each  of  these 
twenty-five  thousand  persons  separate  debtors  to  the  United  States,  each  for 
the  ascertained  and  apportioned  amount  accruing  on  his  land,  which,  when 
paid  by  him,  relieved  him  and  his  property  from  all  further  liability  on 
account  of  said  tax.  Now,  if  the  principle  on  which  alone  this  set-off  can 
be  allowed  is  recognized  as  true,  viz.:  that  the  State  is  debtor,  then  it  will 
follow  that,  contrary  to  the  plain  provisions  of  the  Acts  of  1861  and  1862, 
all  the  people  of  Georgia  who  own  property  of  any  kind,  or  pay  taxes  on 
polls,  become  jointly  liable  for  the  amount  of  the  unpaid  tax — a  sum 
made  up  of  the  separate  debts  of  these  twenty-five  thousand  land  owners — 
and  thus  this  tax  on  land  alone  becomes  in  fact  a  tax  on  all  the  property 
and  .persons  in  the  State  subject  to  taxation. 

So  far  we  have  considered  the  question  solely  on  its  legal  aspects ;  we  do 
not  propose  to  present  any  other.  It  is,  however,  clearly  relevant  to  the 
legal  merits  of  the  controversy,  if  not  directly  involved  in  it,  to  consider 
the  relations  which  the  present  population  of  Georgia  bear  to  the  debt  of 
the  twenty-five  thousand  land  owners  of  the  State  in  the  year  1861. 

It  is  now  a  quarter  of  a  century  since  the  direct  tax  was  imposed.  It  is 
certain  that  largely  more  than  one  half  of  the  people  then  living  are  now 
dead.  Nearly  one  half  of  the  people  of  Georgia — now  citizens — were  then 
mere  property.  They  were  not  taxpayers,  but  constituted  property  on 
which  taxes  were  paid.  If  this  tax  is  now  enforced,  either  partially  or 
wholly  by  set-off  or  otherwise,  against  the  State  as  a  State,  or  against  the 
people  of  the  State  as  an  organized  political  community,  the  enforcement 
can  only  be  against  the  present  citizens,  the  present  taxpayers  of  the  State. 
This  would  result  in  making  the  present  population  of  Georgia,  whether 
owners  of  land  or  not,  pay  the  debt  of  a  small  portion  of  her  citizens  who 
were  land  owners  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago.  This  certainly  is  not  justi- 
fied by  law. 

Whether  the  United  States  have  any  remedy  now  for  the  collection  of 
this  tax  does  not  come  within  our  province  to  inquire;  nor  does  the  ques- 
tion whether  it  would  now  be  just  to  undertake  to  collect  it.  It  may  be 
remarked,  however,  that  the  tax  was  levied  in  1861,  during  the  civil  war; 
that  after  the  war  ended,  the  collection  of  the  tax  was  suspended  by  Act 


202 

of  Congress  till  January  1,  1868,  and  then  by  another  Act  of  Congress  till 
January,  1869.  Since  this  last  date  no  attempt  has  been  made  by  the 
executive  department  to  collect  it.  Nor  has  Congress  made  any  complaint 
of  this  failure.  In  a  report  (No.  592)  on  this  case  made  by  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Claims,  through  Mr.  Hoar,  first  session  Forty-eighth  Congress,  it 
is  stated,  "We  do  not  think  that  it  was  the  expectation  of  Congress  that 
such  a  set-off"  would  be  required,  or  that  it  is  intended  to  enforce  against 
any  delinquent  State  the  payment  in  money  of  its  share  of  such  a  tax." 

The  committee  reach  the  conclusion  that  the  direct  tax  levied  by  the  Act 
of  August  5,  1861,  is  not  a  legal  debt  in  favor  of  the  United  States  against 
any  State  which  has  not,  by  authority  of  its  Legislature,  assumed  payment 
of  the  quota  apportioned  to  it,  and  hence  that  the  demand  of  the  State  of 
Georgia  for  payment  in  lawful  money  of  the  sum  of  $35,555  42,  appropri- 
ated by  the  Act  of  March  3,  1883,  is  not  subject  to  be  set  off"  by  any  claim 
which  the  United  States  may  have  against  her  on  account  of  said  direct 
tax.  ^  They  therefore  recommend  the  passage  of  the  accompanying  bill, 
providing  for  the  payment  in  money  of  the  amount  appropriated  by  the 
Act  of  March  3,  1883,  heretofore  referred  to. 


EXHIBIT  No.  34. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  1. 

In  the   House   of  Representatives.     December  19,  1885 — Read   twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Hammond  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  require  the  payment  in  cash  to  the  State  of  Georgia  of  thirty-five  thousand 
five  hundred  and  fifty-five  dollars  and  forty-two  cents,  appropriated  by  said 
State  by  an  Act  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain  money  expended 
by  said  State  for  the  common  defense  in  seventeen  hundred  and  seventy-seven ^ 
approved  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-three. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury be  and  he  is  hereby  directed  and  required  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Georgia, 
or  its  lawfully  authorized  agent,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated,  the  sum  of  thirty-five  thousand  five  hundred  and 
fifty-five  dollars  and  forty-two  cents,  in  cash,  which  sum  was  appropriated 
for  the  said  State  by  an  Act  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain 
money  expended  by  said  State  for  the  common  defense  in  seventeen  hun- 
dred and  seventy-seven,  approved  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and 
eighty-three. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  laws,  or  parts  of  laws,  and  all  rulings  or  decisions  of 
any  department  of  the  Government,  or  of  any  officer  thereof,  inconsistent 
with  the  foregoing  section,  be  and  are  hereby  repealed  and  annulled. 


EXHIBIT  No.  35. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R,  3.    Report  No.  35. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     December  19,  1885 — Read  twice,  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 


203 

January  19,  1886 — Referred  to  the  House  calendar,  and  ordered  to  be 
printed. 

Mr.  Hammond  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  prevent  the  claim  of  the  war  taxes  under  the  Act  of  August  fifth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-one,  and  Acts  amendatory  thereof,  by  the  United  States, 
as  set-off  against  States  having  claims  against  the  General  Government. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  other  person  charged  with  or  concerned  in  the 
payment  of  any  sum  of  money  from  the  United  States  to  any  State  of  the 
Union,  to  withhold  the  same  from  such  State,  or  its  duly  authorized  agent, 
by  reason  of  any  claim  that  such  State  is  bound  for  any  part  of  th"e  war 
tax  levied  by  the  Act  of  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  or 
any  Act  amendatory  thereof,  or  to  treat  the  said  tax  in  any  way  as  a  set-off 
against  any  claim  in  favor  of  any  State. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  laws  or  parts  of  laws,  and  all  rulings  or  decisions  of 
any  department  of  the  Government,  or  of  any  officer  thereof,  inconsistent 
with  the  foregoing  section,  be  and  are  hereby  repealed  and  annulled. 


EXHIBIT  No.  36. 

WAR   TAXES   AS   SET-OFF   AGAINST    STATE   CLAIMS. 

Mr.  Hammond,  by  direction  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  called 
up  from  the  House  Calendar  for  present  consideration  the  bill  (H.  R.  3)  to 
prevent  the  claim  of  the  war  taxes  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and 
Acts  amendatory  thereof,  by  the  United  States,  as  set-off  against  States 
having  claims  against  the  General  Government. 

The  bill  was  read  as  follows: 

Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  other 
person  charged  with  or  concerned  in  the  payment  of  any  sum  of  money  from  the  United 
States  to  any  State  of  the  Union,  to  withhold  the  same  from  such  State,  or  its  duly  author- 
ized agent,  by  reason  of  any  claim  that  such  State  is  bound  for  any  part  of  the  war  tax 
levied  by  the  Act  of  August  5, 1861,  or  any  Act  amendatory  thereof,  or  to  treat  the  said 
tax  in  any  way  as  a  set-ofF  against  any  claim  in  favor  of  any  State. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  laws  or  parts  of  laws,  and  all  rulings  or  decisions  of  any  department  of 
the  Government  or  of  any  officer  thereof,  inconsistent  with  the  foregoing  section,  be  and 
are  hereby  repealed  and  annulled. 

Mr.  Holman.  I  trust  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  will  allow  the  report 
of  the  committee  to  be  read. 

Mr.  Hammond.  The  gentleman  from  Indiana  suggests  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be  read. 

The  Speaker.  The  reading  of  the  report  will  come  out  of  the  gentleman's 
time. 

Mr.  Hammond.  I  do  not  desire  it  to  be  read  in  my  time;  but  as  this 
bill  will  occupy  more  than  this  hour,  I  would  suggest,  by  unanimous  con- 
sent, the  report  of  the  committee  together  with  the  views  of  the  majority  be 
printed  in  the  Record  to-morrow  morning,  and  then  every  gentleman  can 
have  them  on  his  table  before  discussion  is  ended,  and  before  we  are  called 
upon  to  vote. 


204 

Mr.  Holman.     I  hope  that  will  be  done. 

Mr.  Hammond.  Then  I  ask,  by  unanimous  consent,  that  the  report  of 
the  committee,  together  with  the  views  of  the  minority,  be  printed  in  the 
Record. 

There  was  no  objection,  and  it  was  ordered  accordingly. 

The  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  as  well  as  the  views  of  the 
minority  are  as  follows: 

Mr.  Hammond,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  submitted  the  following  reports 
to  accompany  bill  H.  R.  3 : 

The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  whom  was  referred  bill  H.  R.  3,  have  considered  the 
same,  and  submitted  the  following  report : 

By  an  Act  of  Congress  approved  March  3, 1883,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  required 
to  pay  to  the  State  of  Georgia  $35,555  42  (see  22  U.  S.  Stat.,  485).  It  was  not  paid  because 
of  a  decision  of  Mr.  Lawrence,  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  placing  it  to  the  credit  of 
the  State  on  the  books  of  the  Treasury"  against  a  sum  charged  there  against  the  State  as 
its  quota  of  a  direct  tax  levied  during  the  late  war. 

Bill  H.  R.  4703,  first  session  Forty-eighth  Congress,  was  to  compel  payment,  that  decision 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  The  Judiciary  Committee,  by  Mr.  Hammond,  on  the 
eleventh  of  March,  1884,  reported  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  that  bill.  (See  Report  No.  752, 
first  session  Forty-eighth  Congress.) 

On  the  second  of  May,  1884,  Mr.  Barksdale  of  Mississippi,  introduced  and  had  referred 
to  said  committee  a  bill  (H.  R.  6867)  to  authorize  settlements  with  any  State,  and  directing 
that  "in  such  settlement  and  adjustment  no  charge  shall  be  made,  or  if  made,  shall  be 
valid  by  way  of  set-off  or  otherwise  against  any  State  on  account  of  the  direct  war  tax  laid 
bj'  Congress  by  an  Act  approved  August  5,  1861." 

On  the  twentieth  of  May,  1884,  said  committee,  by  Mr.  Hammond,  reported  thereon  as 
follows : 

"The  obstacles  in  the  way  of  paying  claims  of  States  against  the  General  Government 

f rowing  out  of  the  charge  of  the  direct  war  tax  against  the  States  on  the  books  of  the 
'reasury  Department,  and  the  opinions  by  Treasury  officials  thereon,  as  well  as  the  rea- 
sons why  those  obstacles  should  be  removed,  are  set  forth  in  Report  No.  752  of  this  session 
of  Congress  in  the  Georgia  case,  made  on  the of  March,  1884. 

"Your  committee  believe  that  the  relief  therein  recommended  for  that  State  should  be 
general  as  to  all  the  States  against  which  such  set-off  of  war  taxes  is  being  or  may  be 
claimed,  and  report  accordingly.  They,  however,  report  a  substitute  for  bill  H.  R.  6867, 
and  recommend  the  passage  of  the  substitute  herewith  submitted." 

The  substitute  so  reported  was  this: 

"That  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  other  person  charged 
with  or  concerned  in  the  payment  of  any  sum  of  money  from  the  United  States  to  any 
State  of  the  Union,  to  withhold  the  same  from  such  State,  or  its  duly  authorized  agent,  by 
reason  of  any  claim  that  such  State  is  bound  for  any  part  of  the  war  tax  levied  by  the  Act 
of  August  5,  1861,  or  any  Act  amendatory  thereof,  or  to  treat  the  said  tax  in  any  way  as  a 
set-off  against  any  claim  in  favor  of  any  State. 

"  Sec.  2.  That  all  laws  or  parts  of  laws,  and  all  rulings  or  decisions  of  any  department  of 
the  Government,  or  of  any  officer  thereof,  inconsistent  with  the  foregoing  section  be  and 
are  hereby  repealed  and  annulled." 

This  report  was  No.  1658,  and  the  substitute  bill  H.  R.  7082,  first  session,  Forty-eighth  Con- 
gress. The  substituted  bill  and  Georgia's  separate  bill  both  remained  on  the  calendar,  but 
were  never  reached  in  the  last  Congress.  The  present  bill  (H.  R.  3)  is  a  copy  of  said 
substitute. 

This  committee  adopted  the  reasoning  of  the  former  Judiciarj'-  Committee  in  those 
reports. 

While  the  former  was  on  the  Georgia  case  only,  it  covered  all  the  States  in  like  condi- 
tion. Omitting,  therefore,  only  the  introductory  parts  already  substantially  given,  your 
committee  adopts  the  language  of  that  report  as  follows : 

"  A  little  history  will  cast  much  light  upon  the  subject.  The  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  pro- 
vided for  Collectors  and  Assessors,  and  for  lists  of  property  'from  all  persons  owning,  and 
possessing,  and  having  the  care  or  management  of  any  lands,'  etc.,  for  the  purpose  of  taxing 
the  same.    (Sections  14  to  29,  inclusive.) 

"  Section  33  enacted  that '  the  taxes  so  assessed  shall  be  and  remain  a  lien  upon  all  lands 
and  other  real  estate  of  the  individuals  who  may  be  assessed  for  the  same'  for  two  years. 

"Section  52  provided  that  as  soon  as  Federal  authority  could  be  restored  in  the  Southern 
States  the  tax  should  be  collected '  from  the  persons  residing  or  holding  property  or  stocks 
therein.' 

"  The  eighth  section  enacted — 

"  That  a  direct  tax  of  |20,000,000  be  and  is  hereby  annually  laid  upon  the  United  States, 
and  the  same  shall  be  and  is  hereby  apportioned  to  the  S'tates,  respectively,  in  manner 
following:    *    *    *    To  the  State  of  Georgia,  $584,367  33^.' 

"  To  the  other  States  according  to  their  populations,  respectively.  But  so  far  from  pro- 
posing to  tax  the  States  as  such,  by  Section  13  it  expressly  exempted  from  such  taxes  'all 
property,  of  whatever  kind    *    *    *    belonging  to  the  United  States  or  any  State,'  etc. 


205 

"Section  53  enacted  'that  any  State  or  Territory  and  the  District  of  Columbia  may  law- 
fullj''  assume,  assess,  collect,  and  pay  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  the  direct  tax, 
or  its  quota  thereof,  imposed  by  this  Act  upon  the  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of 
Columbia  in  its  own  way  and  manner,  by  and  through  its  own  officers,  Assessors,  and 
Collectors,'  with  deduction  of  fifteen  per  cent  if  paid  by  the  thirtieth  of  June,  and  of  ten 
per  cent  if  paid  by  the  last  of  September,  of  the  tax  year. 

"It  further  provided  'that  whenever  notice  of  the' intention  to  make  such  payment  by 
the  State,  Territory,  and  the  District  of  Columbia  shall  have  been  given  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,'  then  the  United  States  should  cease  trying  to  collect  by  its  officers  unless 
such  State  should  'be  in  default.'  In  that  event  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  'was  to 
collect  all  or  any  part  of  said  direct  tax  the  same  as  though  said  State,  Territorj^,  or  Dis- 
trict had  not  given  notice  nor  assumed  to  levy,  collect,  and  pay  said  taxes  or  any  part 
thereof  (Section  46). 

"  Said  Section  53  further  provided— 

"'That  the  amount  of  direct  tax  apportioned  to  any  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of 
Columbia,  shall  be  liable  to  be  paid  and  satisfied  in  whole  or  in  part  by  the  release  of  such 
State,  Territory,  or  District,  duly  executed  to  the  United  States,  of 'any  liquidated  and 
determined  claim  of  such  State,  Territory,  or  District  of  equal  amount  against  the  United 
States  with  the  same  abatement  as  if  it  were  paid  in  money.'  (See  12  if.  S.  Statutes,  292- 
312.) 

"Another  law  of  June  7,  1862,  applied  only  to  the  States  in  'insurrection  or  rebellion.' 
It  made  the  tax  upon  each  parcel  of  land  in  each  State  chargeable  with  the  tax  due  upon 
that  parcel,  plus  fifty  per  cent,  and  made  a  lien  on  the  lands  therefor.  It  provided  that '  the 
owner  or  owners  of  said  lots  or  parcels  of  lands '  might  discharge  them  by  paying  within 
a  fixed  time. 

"  It  provided  for  commissions  to  collect  the  tax  in  those  States,  to  Sell  the  lands  of 
defaulting  owners,  etc.,  but  was  silent  as  to  any  assumption  of  the  tax  by  those  States. 
(12  U.  S.  Statutes,  422-426.) 

"  From  time  to  time  Congress  passed  other  Acts  as  to  direct  taxes,  but  none  of  them 
seem  to  have  any  bearing  upon  this  question.  For  instance,  that  of  May  13, 1862,  enlarged 
the  release  proviso  to  include  certain  expenditures  of  the  States  in  sending  troops  to  the 
war,  etc.  (lb.  384);  that  of  July  1, 1862,  limited  the  collection  to  one  year,  till  April,  1865 
(lb.  489),  and  that  of  February  6, 1863,  provided  for  sales  of  lands  and  redemption  by  their 
'owners' (7&.  640). 

"All  the  States,  etc.,  'formally  assumed  the  payment  of  the  tax  except  Delaware,  the 
Territory  of  Colorado,  and  the  eleven  insurrectionary  States.'  (Report  Commissioner 
Internal  Revenue,  1870.    See  Ex.  Doc.  24,  first  session  :^orty-sixth  Congress,  236.) 

"The  collection  of  them  was  suspended  as  to  unpaid  sums  by  Congress. 

"In  1868  an  account  was  opened  upon  the  books  of  the  Treasury  Department  against 
the  State  of  Georgia  for  her  said  quota  of  the  direct  tax,  though  Georgia  had  in  no  way 
assumed  to  pay  the  same.  We  stop  not  now  to  discuss  why  that  was  done,  but  proceed 
with  the  history. 

"  The  Western  and  Atlantic  Railroad  belongs  to  Georgia.  The  State  bought  for  said  road 
some  of  the  rolling  stock  which  had  been  used  by  the  United  States  at  the  South  in  prose- 
cuting the  late  war.  This  property  was  paid  for  in  cash,  the  last  payment  being  on  the 
sixteenth  of  October,  1867.  By  an  Act  approved  the  third  of  March,  1877,  because  of  alleged 
overvaluation  of  said  property  when  sold.  Congress  authorized  the  reopening  of  said 
account  and  adjustment  thereof.    The  Act  rec[uired : 

'"That  when  said  claims  shall  have  been  adjusted  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  this 
Act  the  Secretary  of  War  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  to  issue  his  warrant  on  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States  to  the  Governor  of  Georgia  or  his  order,  for  the  amount  of 
money  it  is  found  ought  to  be  refunded  to  said  railroad  on  account  of  said  settlement.'  (19 
U.  S.  Stat.,  402-3.) 

"The  amount  found  to  be  due  the  State  on  that  account  was  $199,038  58.  (See  Q.  M. 
Gen.'s  Report,  1887,  p.  120.) 

"  So  far  as  we  are  advised  no  question  of  set-off  was  then  made.  Certainly  the  money 
was  paid  in  cash. 

"  On  the  third  of  March,  1879,  Congress  enacted  in  the  Sundry  Civil  Bill— 

"'That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of 
Georgia  |72,296  94  for  advances  made  to  the  United  States  for  the  suppression  of  hostilities 
by  the  Creek,  Seminole,  and  Cherokee  Indians  in  1835,  1836,  1837,  and  1838,  and  that  said 
sum  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated.' 

"  When  payment  was  requested  the  Third  Auditor  called  attention  to  this  direct  tax 
account,  and  asked  information.  Mr.  Sherman,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  referred  to 
Hon.  A.  G.  Porter,  First  Comptroller, '  whether  said  amount  should  be  set  off  against  the 
amount  of  the  direct  tax  under  Act  August  5, 1861,  and  Acts  amendatory  thereto,  appor- 
tioned to  the  State.'  He  wrote  an  opinion.  In  stating  the  facts,  after  giving  a  synopsis 
of  the  Acts  of  1861  and  of  June,  1862,  ante,  he  added:  'The  State  of  Georgia  never  assumed 
the  amount  ajjportioned  to  that  State,  or  any  part  of  it.'  And  then,  after  stating  the 
question,  he  said: 

"'If  the  sum  apportioned  is  a  debt  owing  by  the  State  of  Georgia,  as  a  political  corpora- 
tion, then  it  may  be  assumed  that  it  ought  to  be  so  credited.  If,  however,  it  is  a  debt  owing 
by  the  persons  within  that  State,  whose  lands  have  been  taxed,  and  not  by  the  State  itself, 
then  payment  ought  not  to  be  withheld.' 


206 

"  He  then  called  attention  to  the  decision  of  Mr.  McCulloch,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
in  1866,  as  to  Texas,  and  said : 

" '  Mr.  McCulloch  treated  the  apportionment  of  the  direct  tax  as  a  debt  owing  by  citizens 
of  Texas  belonging  to  the  class  whose  property  was  taxed,  and  not  as  a  debt  owing  by  the 
State  in  its  political  capacity.' 

"  Proceedmg,  he  said : 

" '  The  privilege  of  a  State  to  assume  implies  that  the  debt  before  the  assumption  was  not 
its  own.  Before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  the  person  whose  property  was  charged 
with  the  tax  owed  the  tax  to  the  State,  because  the  State  imposed  it  and  levied  it,  and 
collected  it.  Since  the  adoption  of  that  instrument  the  United  States  has  imposed  the  tax, 
and  has  itself  levied  and  collected  it.  The  obligation  of  the  citizens  is  therefore  to  the 
Union  and  not  to  the  State,  and  he  and  not  the  State  is  the  debtor.' 

"  Enforcing  his  views  by  various  citations,  urging  that  any  other  would  leave  the  States 
with  power  to  thwart  the  collection  of  taxes,  in  an  emergency,  directly  from  the  people, 
and  declaring  that  this  direct  tax  of  1861  could  still  be  collected  when  the  United  States 
wishes,  he  concluded: 

" '  It  follows,  therefore,  that  it  is  my  duty  to  direct  that  the  sum  appropriated  to  the 
State  of  Greorgia  shall  not  be  credited  as  upon  a  debt  owing  by  that  State  to  the  United 
States,  but  shall  be  paid  at  once  to  the  State.' 

"  In  answer  to  a  resolution  by  the  Senate  this  decision  was  transmitted, '  with  accom- 
panying papers,'  to  the  Senate  by  Secretary  Sherman  on  May  24,  1879.  (See  Senate  Ex. 
Doc.  No.  24,  first  session  Forty-sixth  Congress.) 

"The  'accompanying  papers'  show  that  before  this  opinion  was  made  attention  was 
called  to  the  fact  that  Kansas,  Missouri,  West  Virginia,  and  other  States  had  been  credited 
with  various  sums  there  stated.  Mr.  Porter  paid  no  attention  to  them,  because  (as  we 
presume)  they  had  assumed  their  respective  quotas,  and  thus  made  them  a  debt  against 
the  States  as  such.  Subsequently,  in  May,  1881,  Mr.  Lawrence,  the  successor  of  Mr.  Porter, 
decided  the  Kansas  case.  His  opinion  contains  thirty-three  head-notes  and  twenty-five 
sub-headnotes.  Those  which  are  material,  in  our  opinion,  to  the  present  discussion  are  as 
follows : 

"  In  May,  1879,  it  was  decided  by  the  then  First  Comptroller  that  the  direct  tax  apportioned 
to  the  State  of  Georgia  by  the  Acts  of  August  5, 1861,  and  of  June  7,  1862,  was  not  a  debt 
of  the  corporate  State,  which  had  not  by  an  Act  assumed  it;  and  that  although  the  tax 
had  not  been  paid,  yet  money  due  from  the  United  States  to  the  State  must  be  paid  to  the 
latter,  and  could  not  be  used  by  way  of  set-off  or  in  discharge  of  any  part  of  the  claim  for 
direct  taxes.  (See  S.  Ex.  Doc.  !No.  24,  fir.st  session  Forty-sixth  Congress.)  The  conclusion  is 
correct  in  law.  The  decision  of  that  question  was  affected  somewhat  by  the  Act  of  June 
7, 1862,  not  applicable  to  the  question  now  presented.  But  the  same  result  would  be  reached 
without  reference  to  it.  Under  the  Constitution  Congress  can  not  levy  or  enforce  the 
collection  of  a  tax  or  assessment  on  a  corporate  State  which  has  not  assumed  it.  The 
National  Government  does  not  operate  on  States  in  the  collection  of  revenues,  but  on  per- 
sons or  property,  or  both.'    (2  Lawrence,  Compt.,  Dec,  310.) 

"  He  further  held  that  his  predecessors  had  decided  that  Kansas  had  voluntarily  assumed 
her  quota  of  the  tax;  that  he  was  bound  by  that  decision,  and  that  therefore  a  sum  appro- 
priated to  Kansas  should  not  be  paid,  must  be  placed  to  her  credit  against  said  assumed 
debt.    (76.,  324.) 

"  The  decision  of  Lawrence,  Comptroller,  made  twelfth  May,  1883,  refusing  to  pay  this 
money  to  Georgia,  has  thirty  headnotes.  We  do  not  believe  that  we  need  differ  with  any 
of  them  but  the  sixth,  seventh,  tenth,  and  nineteenth.  We  call  attention  to  them,  and  the 
eighth,  also.    They  are: 

" '  6.  The  First  OomptroUer  had  jurisdiction  and  authority  in  May,  1868,  to  certify  a  bal- 
ance as  due  from  the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  States,  for  the  quota  of  direct  taxes 
apportioned  to  said  State  by  the  Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861.    (12  Stat.,  294.) 

" '  7.  The  Comptroller  now  in  office  can  not  inquire  whether  the  Comptroller  in  office  in 
May,  1868,  who  then  certified  a  balance  due  from  the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  States  on 
account  of  direct  taxes,  had  before  him  sufficient  evidence  to  authorize  such  action,  or 
whether  on  such  evidence  as  he  then  had  he  properly  construed  the  law.  The  judicial 
Courts  or  Congress  can  furnish  the  only  relief  in  such  case,  if  the  Comptroller  erred  in 
charging  the  State  with  such  liability. 

'"8.  Congress  may  by  law  require  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department 
to  set  off  a  claim  of  the  United  States  against  a  State,  when  such  State  demands  payment 
of  a  claim  due  to  it  from  the  United  States,  although  in  such  case  Congress  might  not 
under  the  Constitution  charge  such  corporate  State  with  a  liability  and  enforce  its  pay- 
ment in  any  other  mode  except  by  such  set-off. 

'' '  9.  The  legislation  of  Congress  in  relation  to  the  quota  of  direct  taxes  apportioned  to 
Missouri  and  West  Virginia  seems  in  principle  to  recognize  the  correctness  of  the  judg- 
ment of  the  First  Comptroller,  by  which,  in  May,  1868,  he  certified  a  balance  as  due  from  the 
State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  States  for  its  quota  of  the  direct  tax  apportioned  to  that 
State  by  the  Act  of  August  5, 1861. 

"'The  direct  tax  of  August  5,  1861  (12  Stat,  311,  Section  53),  provides  a  special  statutory 
mode  of  paying  the  quota  of  tax  apportioned  to  any  State  by  declaring  that  it '  shall  be 
liable  to  be  paid '  by  set-off '  of  any  liquidated  and  determined  claim  of  such  State  *  *  * 
against  the  United  States. 

*  *  *         •  *  *  *  * 

"'The  balance  certified  by  the  First  Comptroller,  May  29, 1868,  as  due  to  the  United  States 


207 

from  the  State  of  Georgia,  for  its  quota  of  direct  tax,  under  the  Act  of  August  5, 1861,  has 
not  been  in  anj'-  form  set  aside  or  rendered  inoperative.' 

"  First.  Did  any  Comptroller  ever,  in  any  fair  sense,  try  to  raise  a  debt  against  Georgia 
for  this  tax?    Mr.  I^awrence,  in  this  opinion,  stated  the  facts  in  this  language : 

'"May  11,  1868,  by  Report  No.  55448  the  Fifth  Auditor  'examined  and  adjusted  an 
account  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Georgia,'  and  found  'that  the  sum  of 
$584,367  33  is  due  from  said  State  to  the  United  States  *  *  *  for  amount  of  direct  tax 
imposed  and  apportioned  by  the  eighth  section  of '  the  Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861, 
'  amount  to  be  debited  to  the  State  of  Georgia  on  the  books  of  the  Register  of  the  Treas- 
ury.' 

" '  May  29, 1868,  the  First  Comptroller  certified  to  the  Begister  a  balance  due  and  payable 
as  stated  in  the  above  report,  and  it  was  accordingly  charged,  on  the  Register's  books,  as 
a  debt  due  from  the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  States. 

" '  September  3,  1874,  the  Fifth  Auditor  by  Report  No.  5  adjusted  an  account  between  the 
United  States  and  T.  P.  Robb,  Samuel  A.  Pancoast,  and  John  C.  Bates,  Commissioners  of 
Direct  Tax  for  the  State  of  Georgia,  from  August  1, 1865,  to  December  15,  1866,  and  found 
them  chargeable  with  '  amount  of  direct  tax  laid  upon  the  State  of  Georgia  by  Act  of 
Congress  approved  August  5, 1861,  $584,367  33.'  The  report  shows  costs  chargeable  to  the 
State  $649  72,  and  finds  the  Commissioners  entitled  to  credit  for  salaries  and  expenses 
$9,835  06,  amount  for  taxes  remaining  uncollected  $501,939  86,  amount  refunded  to  tax- 
payers on  account  of  collections  improperly  made  $46  17,  and  cash  deposited  $71,407  75, 
covered  into  the  Treasury  by  miscellaneous  warrants  numbered  and  dated  in  1866,  respect- 
ively, 747  March  31,  524  June  25,  697  June  30,  596  September  29,  and  726  December  31. 

" '  January  9, 1875,  the  acting  First  Comptroller  certified  a  balance  of  $1,788  22  '  due  to  the 
United  States  from  the  Commissioners,  as  stated  in  above  report.  The  amount  of  these 
warrants  was  placed  to  the.  credit  of  the  State  of  Georgia  in  the  Register's  office  on  said 
account  for  direct  taxes.' 

"In  May,  1868,  the  amount  fixed  by  the  statue  as  the  quota  of  Georgia  was  charged  to 
her,  and  afterward,  in  1874,  the  same  amount  was  charged  by  the  same  office  to  the  United 
States  Commissioners  of  Direct  Tax  for  the  State  of  Georgia,  and  they  were  credited  with 
various  sums  collected  and  uncollected,  and  among  others  an  '  amount  refunded  to  tax- 
payers on  account  of  collections  improperly  made,  $46  17.'  The  dealing  with  '  taxpayers ' 
showed  that  the  State  was  not  considered  the  debtor.  The  'taxpayers'  owed  only  if 
Georgia  had  not  assumed  the  debt.  Taking  the  two  accounts  together,  it  seems  plain  that 
the  account  was  so  stated  only  for  convenience  of  keeping  the  books  of  the  department. 
Any  other  view  makes  us  to  assume  that  the  officer  raising  the  account  acted  in  ignorance 
of  the  law.  The  First  Comptroller  could  have  no  jurisdiction  under  the  Act  of  1861  to  state 
an  account  against  any  State  which  had  not  assumed  the  debt. 

"  It  is  true,  as  stated  in  the  tenth  headnote,  supra,  that  said  Act  provides  a  special  stat- 
utorv  mode  of  paying  the  quota  of  tax  apportioned  to  any  State,  by  declaring  that  it 

*  shall  be  liable  to  be  paid '  by  set-off  '  of  any  liquidated  and  determined  claim  of  such 
State  *  *  *  against  the  United  States.'  But  more  is  true.  That '  special  statutory  mode 
of  paying'  is  in  the  words  which  Mr.  Lawrence  omitted  from  the  quotation,  namely,  'by 
the  release  of  such  State  *  *  *  duly  executed  to  the  United  States.'  By  such  release, 
with  a  view  to  such  credit,  the  State  consents  to  the  account  against  it,  and  thus  assumes 
the  debt.  It  was  by  such  a  release  that  Missouri  was  credited  (see  Act  of  July  17,  1862,  in 
said  Senate  Ex.  Dec.  24,  page  197).  The  same  is  true  as  to  West  Virginia,  under  the  Act  of 
February  25,  1867  (lb.,  207).  They  assumed  the  debt  and  sought  to  have  certain  credits 
allowed.  Georgia  did  not  assume  it,  and  therefore  nothing  in  their  cases  authorizes  the 
raising  of  such  an  account  against  Georgia. 

"  Mr.  Lawrence  admits  that  this  action  of  his  predecessor  is  the  only  obstacle,  and  that 
it  is  not  in  the  way  of  payment  if  it  was  'unauthorized  or  void.'  If  no  statue  authorized 
it,  it  was '  unauthorized.'  No  statute  created  such  a  debt  except  by  the  consent  of  the  State, 
and  the  State  did  not  consent.  There  is  no  pretense  that  the  First  Comptroller  found  such 
fact  upon  niquiry.  It  is  only  stated  that  he  did  an  act  from  which  it  is  inferred  that  he 
found  such  fact.  But  that  does  not  follow ;  for  he  may  have  raised  the  account  for  other 
reasons.  Congress  can  not  make  sucha  debt  against  a  State  without  its  consent.  There 
was  no  consent,  and  therefore  the  Act  raising  such  account,  when  considered  as  to  whether 
that  Act.made  Georgia  the  debtor,  is  'void.' 

"We  admit  that  'all  claims  or  demands  whatever  by  the  United  States  *  *  *  shall 
be  settled  and  adjusted  in  the  Department  of  the  Treasury'  (Rev.  Stat.,  §236).  But  there 
must  be  a  claim  or  demand  to  adjust.  The  statute  declared  there  could  be  none  against  a 
State  till  it  assented,  and  Georgia  never  assented.    So,  while  the  Second  Comptroller  must 

*  examine  all  accounts'  settled  by  the  Auditors  {Ih.,  273),  and  the  First  Auditor 'must 
examine  all  accounts  accruing  in  the  Treasury  Department'  {lb.,  277),  there  must  be  a 
debtor,  by  law,  before  an  account  can  exist  for  examination. 

"  It  is  useless  to  examine  whether  Congress  '  may  so  far  declare  a  State  indebted  to  the 
United  States  as  to  secure  satisfaction  of  the  debt  by  withholding  from  it  by  set-off,  as  in 
this  case,  money  admitted  to  be  due  from  the  United  States  to  such  State,'^for  Congress 
has  never  made  such  declaration.  Nor  need  we  discuss  whether  Congress  had  power  '  to 
enforce  the  collection  of  tax  against  the  corporate  property  of  the  State,'  though  Mr.  Law- 
rence said '  the  power  to  do  so  in  the  time  of  war  seems  undoubted.'  Mr.  Thaddeus  Stevens, 
when  he  presented  the  Direct  Tax  Bill  to  Congress,  in  the  midst  of  war  and  to  raise  means 
promptly  to  prosecute  the  war,  said '  Congress  has  no  constitutional  power  to  assess  taxes 
upon  a  State.    It  must  assess  it  upon  the  individual '  (Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  24,  ante,  page  41).    And 


208 

the  Act  levying  the  tax  expressly  exempted  all  State  property.    It  sought  not  to  exercise 
such  i^ower  if  it  existed. 

"Suppose  we  admit  that  Congress  might  legislate  as  the  eighth  headnote  declares;  Con- 
gress has  not  so  legislated  in  this  case.  On  the  contrary,  an  effort  to  have  it  so  legislate 
was  defeated.  On  the  sixth  of  December,  1882,  the  bill  was  reached  and  taken  up  in  the 
House. 

"Mr.  Holman,  as  soon  as  the  report  had  been  read,  said: 

_" '  The  question  is  presented  whether  or  not  this  sum  should  be  paid  by  the  United  States 
directly  to  the  State  of  Georgia,  or  whether  it  shall  be  allowed  as  a  credit  to  that  State  on 
the  amount  of  direct  tax  apportioned  against  the  State  under  the  Act  of  August  5, 1861.' 

"  Mr.  Turner  replied : 

" '  The  direct  tax  is  a  tax  due  by  the  people  of  the  State,  not  by  the  State  in  its  corporate 
or  aggregate  capacity,'  etc.— Congressional  Record,  volume  59,  page  69. 

"The  issue  thus  made  was  debated  pro  and  con.  Mr.  Holman  moved  to  add  to  the 
biU- 

^'^  Provided,  however,  that  the  said  sum,  $35,555  42,  shall  not  be  paid  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  until  the  sum  due  the  United  States  of  direct  taxes  apportioned  to  the  State 
of  Georgia  under  the  Act  entitled  'An  Act  to  provide  increased  revenue  from  imports  to 
pay  the  interest  on  the  public  debt,  and  for  other  purposes,'  approved  August  5, 1861,  shall 
have  been  adjusted.'    (76.,  65.) 

*  "  A  motion  to  strike  out  the  enacting  clause  was  lost;  the  ayes  were  52  and  the  nays 
were  76, 

"  Mr.  Holman's  proposed  amendment  was  also  lost  by  ayes  53  to  nays  90,  An  efltbrt  to 
adjourn  was  lost  by  80  nays  to  50  yeas.  Upon  the  passage  of  the  bill  the  yeas  and  nays 
were  demanded,  and  it  was  passed  by  yeas  96  to  nays  80.  (76.,  68.)  The  report  was  read 
in  the  Senate,  and  the  bill  passed  without  debate.— Congressional  Record,  volume  62,  pasres 
3660, 3670-3672.  '  .  >  ^  & 

"Again,  we  think  the  payments  made  to  the  State  of  Georgia,  aforesaid,  were  at  least 
"waivers  of  any  such  claim  by  the  United  States  as  is  here  asserted,  and  did  set  aside  and 
render  inoperative  said  certification  of  the  account  in  May.  1868,  if  it  ever  were  operative 
for  the  purpose  claimed. 

"  Mr.  Lawrence  does  not  claim  that  the  decision  of  his  predecessor  was  correct.  He 
seems  to  admit,  in  the  opinion,  that  he  would  reverse  it  if  he  thought  he  could.  He  really 
suggests  this  legislation  in  his  annual  report  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 1883.  His 
language  was  this : 

"'In  1868  the  First  Comptroller  then  in  oflQce  certified  balances  due  to  the  United  States 
from  several  States  respectively,  for  direct  taxes  due  and  unpaid,  under  the  Direct  Tax 
Act  of  August  5,  1861  (12  Stat.,  292),  and  such  States  were  accordingly  debited  on  the  books 
in  the  office  of  the  Register  of  the  Treasury.  It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  any  cor^ 
porate  State  was  properly  so  charged,  but  as  the  Comptroller  had  jurisdiction  of  the  subject- 
niatter,  his  action,  even  if  erroneous,  can  not  be  treated  as  void  by  the  Comptroller  now 
in  office.  The  result  is  that  money  due,  or  which  may  become  due,  from  the  United  States 
to  any  State  so  charged,  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  so  charged,  can  not  be  paid  to  the 
State,  but,  by  usage  and  law,  is  to  be  applied  by  way  of  set-offT  It  may  thus  happen  that 
some  States  will  in  this  mode  pay  the  direct  tax,  while  others  indebted  in  the  same  form 
will  continue  so  indebted  ;  and  hence  there  will  seem  to  be  inequality,  if  not  injustice,  in 
the  dealings  between  the  United  States  and  such  States.  The  money  appropriated  by  the 
Act  of  March  3,  1883  (22  Stat.,  485),  'to  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain  money 
expended  by  said  State  for  the  common  defense  in  1877,'  was  withheld  and  applied  by  way 
of  set-off  on  the  sum  charged  against  said  State  for  direct  taxes.  If  it  be  the  purpose  of 
Congress  that  moneys  due  to  such  States  shall  be  paid,  it  is  respectfully  suggested  that 
provision  should  be  made  authorizing  payment  without  reference  to  the  charge  against 
any  such  States.' 

"Suppose  this  money  can  not  be  paid,  and  that  Mr.  Lawrence  is  right  that  the  judicial 
Courts  or  Congress  can  furnish  the  only  relief  in  such  case,  if  the  Comptroller  erred  in 
charging  the  State  with  such  liability;  still  this  bill  should  pass,  and  for  that  very  reason. 
The  United  States  admits  this  indebtedness  to  Georgia ;  it  admits  Georgia  is  not  in  debt  to 
the  United  States,  and  it  has  formally  \indertaken  to  pay  this  debt  to  Georgia.  Why 
should  she  be  remitted  to  the  Court  of  Claims.    We  see  no  reason  therefor, 

"  By  reason  of  a  real  or  supposed  obstacle,  unknown  to  Congress  when  the  bill  for  pay- 
ment was  passed,  the  debt  of  the  United  States  has  not  been  paid.  An  officer  of  the 
United  States  erroneously  put  that  obstacle  in  the  way.  It  should  be  removed,  unless 
there  is  some  other  reason  to  the  contrary, 

"  Is  there  any  ?  There  is  none,  unless  the  United  States  should  refuse  to  pay  simply 
because  Georgia  did  not  pay  the  direct  tax.  Laying  aside  the  question  whether  this  tax 
Act  was  operative  within  the  States  with  which  the  United  States  was  then  at  war,  a 
refusal  on  that  ground  seems  to  be  unjust  for  these -and  other  reasons :  Georgia  does  not 
owe  the  debt  to  the  United  States,  but,  at  most,  parts  of  it  are  due  from  certain  of  her 
citizens  respectively.  Only  those  citizens  who  in  1861  owned  the  lands  taxed  owe  the 
taxes,  and  no  property  is  bound  for  the  tax  except  those  lands.  If  Secretary  McCulloch 
was  right  in  his  Texas  decision,  ante,  and  Mr.  Porter  was  right  in  the  Georgia  case,  ante, 
Georgia  could  not,  after  a  fixed  day  in  1862,  assume  the  debts,  if  she  wished.  Georgia  can 
not  collect  these  taxes  without  such  assumption. 

"It  does  not  seem  just  to  collect  from  Georgia,  as  a  State,  any  part  of  a  debt  she  does 
not  owe,  nor  from  her,  as  representing  the  land  owners  of  1861,  by  withholding  money 


209 

which  belongs  to  Georgia  as  a  State,  and  if,  as  representing  any  citizens,  as  representing 
all  her  citizens,  whether  owning  lands  in  1861  or  anything  else  at  any  time. 

"  It  does  not  seem  that  the  United  States  will  ever  collect  those  direct  taxes  of  1861.  But 
could  it  and  should  it  determine  to  do  so,  equal  collections  should  be  made  from  all  the 
Southern  States  simultaneously.  To  make  Georgia  pay  indirectly  by  withholding  from 
her  admitted  dues  from  the  United  States  has  not  been  the  policy  of  the  Government,  as 
appears  from  the  payments  already  of  over  a  quarter  of  a  million  dollars  to  her  in  cash 
since  said  account  was  raised  in  1868.  We  do  not  think  it  should  become  the  policy  of 
the  Government.    Therefore,  we  recommend  that  the  bill  do  pass." 

The  committee  therefore  recommend  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Hepburn,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  submitted  the  following  as  the 
views  of  the  minority  (to  accompany  bill  H.  R.  3): 

The  officers  of  the  Treasury  are  required  to,  and  do,  set  off  sums  of  money  due  from 
the  United  States  to  any  State  against  any  sums  that  may  be  due  from  the  State. 

These  officers  have  for  many  years  regarded  the  unpaid  tax  levied  upon  the  United 
States  and  apportioned  among  the  States  by  the  eighth  section  of  the  Act  of  Congress 
approved  August  5, 1861,  as  a  debt  due  from  the  delinquent  State,  and  have  treated  the 
same  as  a  proper  set-off  against  any  moneys  due  to  said  State.  Thus  the  sum  of  $35,555  42 
was  appropriated  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Georgia,  by  the  Act  approved  March  3,  1883,  but 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  declined  to  make  such  payment,  because  he  found  that  on 
the  books  of  the  Treasury  there  was  charged  against  "the  State  of  Georgia  the  sum  of 
$512,959  48,  that  had  been  for  many  years,  certainly  since  the  year  1868,  regarded  as  a  debt 
due  from  the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  States,  being  the  balance  of  the  direct  tax 
apportioned  to  said  State  under  the  Act  above  referred  to  and  amendments  thereto. 

House  Bill  No.  3  forbids  the  officers  of  the  Treasury  to  treat  the  unpaid  portions  of  such 
direct  tax  as  a  debt  or  in  any  way  as  a  set-off  against  any  claim  in  favor  of  any  State. 
The  majority  of  the  committee  have  recommended  the  passage  of  the  bill.  The  under- 
signed are  of  the  opinion  that  it  should  not  pass,  at  least  until  it  undergoes  material 
modification. 

Accompanying  a  letter  of  Hon.  Charles  J.  Folger,  late  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
addressed  to  Hon.  George  F.  Edmunds,  under  date  of  March  29,  1884,  was  the  following : 


Statement  of  the  condition  of  the  direct  tax  accounts  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  and 
the  District  of  Columbia,  under  Acts  of  August  5, 1861,  and  June  7, 1862. 


State  or  Territory. 


Amount 
Imposed. 


Amount  Paid. 


Fifteen  per  Cent 
Allowance. 


Balance  Due 
United  States. 


Alabama 

Arkansas 

California- 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Dakota 

Delaware 

District  of  Columbia 

Florida .. 

Georgia , 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri. 

Nebraska ... 

Nevada  ... 

New  Hampshire 

New  Jersey 

New  Mexico 

New  York 

North  Carolina 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode  Island 

14  m 


$529,313  33 

261,886  00 

254,538  67 

22,905  33 

308,214  00 

3,241  33 

74,683  33 

49,437  33 

77,522  67 

584,367  33 

1,146,551  33 

904,875  33 

452,088  00 

71,743  33 

713,695  33 

385,886  67 

420,826  00 

436,823  33 

824,581  33 

501,763  33 

108,424  00 

413,084  67 

761,127  33 

19,312  00 

4,592  67 

218,406  67 

450,134  00 

62,648  00 

2,603,918  67 

576,194  67 

1.567,089  33 

35,140  67 

1.946,719  33 

116,963  67 


$8,491  46 

184,082  18 

247,941  13 

1,516  89 

261,987  90 


74,683  33 

49,437  33 

43,529  81 

71,407  75 

974,568  63 

769,144  03 

384,274  80 

71,743  33 

606,641  03 

268,515  12 

357,702  10 

371,299  83 

700,894  14 

426,498  83 

92,245  40 

74,742  57 

646,958  23 

19,312  00 

4,592  67 

185,645  67 

382,614  83 

62,648  00 

2,213,330  86 

386,194.  45 

1,332,025  93 

35,140  67 

1,654,711  43 

99,419  11 


$46,232  10 
'  *4,350"50' 


171,982  70 

135,731  30 

67,813  20 


107,054  30 


63,123  90 
65,523  50 
123,607  19 
75,264  50 
16.278  60 


411,869  10 
(See  note.) 


32,761  00 
67,519  17 
(See  note.) 
390,587  81 


235,063  40 


292,007  90 
17,544  56 


$520,821  87 

77,803  82 

6,597  54 

21,388  44 


3,211  33 


33,992  86 
512,959  58 


117,371  55 


338,342  10 


190,000  22 


210 


Statement  of  the  condition  of  the  direct  tax  accounts  of  the  several  States — Continued. 


State  oe  Territory. 


Amount 
Imposed. 


Amount  Paid. 


Fifteen  per  Cent 
Allowance. 


Balance  Due 

United  States. 


Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont  . 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 
Washington  .. 

Wisconsin 

South  Carolina 


$669,498  00 

355,106  67 

26,982  00 

211,068  00 

1 729,071  02 

t208,479  65 

7,755  33 

519,688  67 

363,570  67 


1387,722  06 
130,008  06 


179,407  80 
515,569  72 
181,306  93 
4,268  16 
429,196  68 
377.961  30 


$31,660  20 
'2y,i72'72" 


$281,775  94 

225,098  61 

26,982  00 


213,501  30 


39,346  43 
U4,390  63 


3,487  17 
51,145  56 


*  Included  on  compromise. 

f  Joint  resolution  Tebruary  25, 1867,  authorized  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  transfer  ^208,479  65  of  the 
amount  originally  appropriated  to  Virginia  to  the  State  of  West  Virginia. 
J  Overpaid. 

NOTE. 

Nebraska : 

Amount  collected $4,281  60 

Amount  allowed  by  Act  of  August  7,  1882  (22  Stat,  p.  314)... 15,030  40 

$19,312  00 

New  Mexico : 

Amount  allowed  by  Act  of  July  1, 1862  (12  Stat.,  p.,  489) 62,648  00 

Nearly  $17,500,000  of  the  original  $20,000,000  levied  is  shown  to  have  been  paid,  and  some- 
thing more  than  $2,500,000  now  stknds  charged  against  fourteen  States,  more  than  $2,000,000 
of  it  being  against  the  States  of  Alabama,  Georgia,  Mississippi,  North  Carolina,  Tennessee, 
Texas,  and  Virginia. 

It  is  more  than  probable  that  no  part  of  this  sum  of  $2,500,000  will  ever  be  realized  by 
the  Government,  except  as  it  may  be  used  as  a  set-off  against  claims  like  that  of  Georgia, 
first  above  referred  to,  and  the  effect  of  this  bill  (H.  R.  No.  3)  will,  in  behalf  of  all  the 
delinquent  States,  be  as  effective  as  payment,  or  a  release. 

The  question  is  a  pertinent  one:  Why  should  the  delinquent  States  be  released?  The 
majority  of  the  committee  answer  that  the  claim  against  Georgia  and  the  other  delin- 
quent States  is  not  a  debt  due  from  the  State,  making  a  distinction  between  Georgia  as  a 
political  corporation,  and  the  whole  of  the  people  of  Georgia.  Indeed,  it  is  claimed  that  a 
tax  can  not  be  levied  upon  a  State.  We  do  not  see  why.  There  might  be  difficulty  in 
many  instances  to  make  collections  if  the  State  refused  to  perform  its  duty  by  prompt 
payment.  There  are  but  few  of  the  States  that  are  the  owners  of  real  estate  beyond  that 
that  is  used  in  the  performance  of  the  functions  of  government.  The  United  States  is 
greatly  interested  in  the  full  performance  by  each  of  the  States  of  all  the  duties  imposed 
upon  them,  and  could  not  consent  to  throw  any  impediment  in  the  way  of  such  perform- 
ance, as  would  be  the  case  if  the  Government  should  seize  the  capitol,  the  prisons,  the 
hospitals,  and  the  colleges  belonging  to  a  non-paying  State  and  sell  them  in  order  to  realize 
the  tax.  Hence,  in  the  case  of  one  of  the  reluctant  and  non-performing  States,  the  Gov- 
ernment crosses  the  State  line  and  lays  hold  upon  the  citizen,  levies  upon  his  land,  and 
forces  him  to  make  the  payment  that  is  due  from  his  State  and  that  is  owed  by  him,  and 
payment  of  which  is  forced  from  him,  only  because  his  State  is  not  in  such  condition  as 
to  be  forced  to  pay,  except  at  the  expense  of  its  usefulness  as  a  governing  factor. 

The  Federal  Government  is  always  forced  to  deal  with  the  individual  when  the  State 
refuses  the  performance  of  duty.  When  States  were  in  rebellion  they  were  forced  to  the 
resumption  of  duties  through  and  by  the  exertions  of  the  Government  upon  the  individual 
members  of  the  society  composing  and  constituting  the  State.  There  is  no  other  medium 
through  which  the  Government  can  act.  It  coerces  the  State  through  the  individual. 
Hence  the  machinery  of  the  law  of  August  5,  1861,  providing  for  the  levy  on  and  sale  of 
the  property  of  individuals  and  collections  from  them.  If  each  of  the  States  had  been  in 
sympathy  and  accord  with  the  purposes  of  the  Government,  it  is  more  than  probable  that 
the  sections  following  the  eighth  of  the  Act  of  1861  would  never  have  been  enacted.  The 
Congress  would  have  contented  itself  with  the  imposition  of  the  tax  upon  the  United 
States  and  "  apportionment  among  the  several  States."  But  it  was  known  that  several  of 
the  States  were  hostile  to  the  Government ;  that  they  would  not  pay  the  sum  apportioned 
to  them,  and  for  this  reason,  and  in  our  judgment  only  for  this  reason,  do  we  find  these 
provisions  in  the  law  that  look  to  the  coHection  of  the  sums  not  paid  by  States  from  the 
citizens  of  the  delinquent  States.  We  do  not  regard  these  provisions  of  the  Act  as  do  the 
majority,  as  evidencing  a  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  law-makers  to  exempt  the  State  from 
indebtedness,  and  impose  indebtedness  primarily  upon  the  individual  citizens  composing 
the  State.  The  practice  of  our  Courts  illustrates  this  principle.  A  debt  is  due  from  a 
county  as  a  political  corporation.  Its  officers  refuse  payment  and  refuse  to  levy  a  tax  to 
meet  a  judgment  rendered.  The  Court  will  send  the  marshal  and  his  deputies  to  make 
levies  and  collections,  to  lay  hold  of  the  individuals  composing  the  political  corporation 
that  is  derelict  in  its  duty. 

But  it  is  said  by  the  report  of  the  majority  that  the  tax  can  not  be  a  debt  due  from  the 


211 

states  to  be  relieved,  because  those  States  had  not  assumed  the  debt.  We  submit  that  if 
the  power  to  tax  exists  it  exists  independently  of  consent.  In  the  obligation  to  pay  taxes 
there  are  none  of  the  elements  of  a  contract.  The  power  to  levy  these  taxes  came  from 
the  Constitution.  The  language  is,  "  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  lay  and  collect 
taxes."  "  Direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States."  Not  among  the 
people  of  the  several  States,  but  among  the  States. 

If  the  United  States  by  a  levy  and  apportionment  of  a  direct  tax  among  the  States  does 
not  impose  an  obligation,  a  debt,  upon  the  States,  by  what  right  do  the  States  assume  such 
tax  and  thus  impose  a  burden  on  the  people  ?  The  power  of  a  State  to  levy  taxes  upon 
the  people  is  limited  to  the  necessities  of  its  present  or  prospective  indebtedness.  These 
needs  alone  bound  the  power  of  taxation,  if  the  States  did  not  owe,  or  if  it  was  not  cer- 
tain that  at  a  future  day  the  State  would  owe,  various  debts,  then  we  submit  the  act  of 
taking  the  people's  money  through  the  exercise  of  the  taxing  power  would  be  the  veriest 
robbery.  What  right  has  the  State  to  assume  the  individual  debt  of  A,  B,  or  C,  its  citi- 
zens ?  If  this  tax  was  a  debt  from  individuals,  where  did  the  several  States  get  the  power 
to  assume  it?  Is  the  payment  of  the  debts  of  citizens  one  of  the  functions  of  State  Gov- 
ernment ?  The  property  of  individuals  can  only  be  taken  for  public  uses,  but  here  we  find 
a  State  seizing  the  property  of  one  citizen  to  pay  what  the  ma]ority  say  is  the  x'rivate  debt 
of  an  individual  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  It  can  not  be  said  that  the 
prospect  of  a  fifteen  per  cent  fee  can  invest  the  State  with  the  right  to  become  a  collecting 
agent  and  force  its  citizens  to  a  payment  of  their  debts,  not  by  the  use  of  the  State  Courts, 
but  by  the  use  of  the  taxing  power  of  the  State. 

In  bur  belief  the  State  had  no  power  to  assume  the  debt  of  another,  but  being  indebted 
to  the  United  States,  it  had  the  power  to  assume  the  duty  of  the  levy  and  collection  of 
such  sums  of  money  as  would  pay  the  debt,  and  by  so  doing  relieve  the  United  States 
from  the  expense  and  responsibiiitj'-  of  making  the  collections  from  many  individuals,  and 
by  this  assumption  earn  the  fifteen  or  ten  per  cent  promised  in  the  law. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  there  are  many  reasons  indicating  the  impolicy  of  attempts 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  collect  the  sums  due  from  the  delinquent  States.  Yet 
a  large  majority  of  the  States  have  paid  their  full  apportionment.  Why  should  those 
States  which  have  refused  to  perform  their  duty  receive  rewards  that  are  not  bestowed 
upon  those  that  were  faithful  to  duty. 

We  are  willing  that  the  provisions  of  House  Bill  No.  3  should  be  enacted  into  law,  but 
only  on  the  condition  that  the  States  are  all  placed  in  an  equallj^  just  position.  If  Georgia, 
that  has  not  paid,  is  to  be  released,  then  Illinois,  that  has  paid  in  full,  should  be  repaid  all 
she  has  paid  of  this  direct  tax,  as  well  as  all  of  her  expenses  incurred.  The  duty  of  prompt 
payment  of  the  sums  apportioned  to  each  of  the  States  rested  upon  all  alike.  It  was 
Georgia's  duty  to  pay  promptly  just  as  it  was  the  duty  of  Illinois.  The  latter  did  pay  and 
did  discharge  in  full  her  indebtedness.  The  other  utterly  refused  to  pay,  and  now  demands, 
through  House  Bill  No.  3,  that  the  United  States  shall  surrender  the  only  means  by  which 
it  is  practicable  to  force  partial  and  long  deferred  payment.  We  do  not  believe  there  is 
justice  in  this  demand;  certainly  not  without  all  of  the  States  are  restored  to  the  position 
occupied  before  the  levy  was  made  and  the  debt  imposed. 

We  favor  the  restoration  of  all  the  States  to  the  status  occupied  before  the  imposition  of 
the  tax,  by  the  remission  of  all  that  part  of  the  $20,000,000  not  paid  to  the  States  delinquent, 
and  the  return  of  all  sums  of  money  paid  to  the  States  malcing  the  payments,  together 
with  the  percentage  of  ten  or  fifteen  per  cent  due  to  the  States  making  collections. 

And  as  a  measure  that  would  establish  proper  relations  of  equality  between  the  States 
and  Territories  in  regard  to  said  direct  taxes  levied,  we  report  the  following  substitute  for 
House  Bill  No.  3,  and  recommend  its  passage. 

W.  P.  HEPBURN. 
A.  A.  RANNEY. 
A.  X.  PARKER. 
L.  B.  CASWELL. 

Strike  out  from  House  Bill  No.  3  all  after  the  enacting  clause,  and  insert  the  following 
words : 

"  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  directed  to  state  an  account 
with  each  of  the  States  and  Territories  of  the  United  States  as  they  existed  on  the  fifth 
day  of  August,  1861,  and  with  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  in  said  statement  of  account 
he  shall  place  to  the  credit  of  each  State,  Territory,  and  District  all  moneys  paid  by  either 
of  them  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  or  all  moneys  that  were  collected  by  the 
agents  of  the  United  States,  from  either  of  them  or  from  their  citizens,  as  direct  taxes 
levied  upon  the  United  States,  and  apportioned  among  the  several  States,  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  5, 1861,  and  the  amendments  thereto,  and 
he  shall  also  place  to  the  credit  of  each  State,  Territory,  and  District  such  sums  of  money 
as  were  earned  by  any  such  States,  Territories,  or  District,  by  reason  of  collections  of  said 
direct  taxes  made  by  them  and  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States ;  and  said 
Secretary  is  directed  to  pay  to  each  of  said  States,  Territories,  or  District  the  sums  under 
said  accountings  found  to  be  due,  and  credited  to  them,  respectively,  and  the  said  Secre- 
tary is  further  directed  to  write  opposite  to  any  charges  of  debt  that  now  stands  on  the 
books  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  against  any  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of 
Columbia,  by  reason  of  the  direct  tax  above  mentioned,  the  words  'remitted  in  full,'  and 
the  said  unpaid  portion  of  said  direct  tax  is  hereby  remitted  in  full  to  the  States,  Terri- 
tories, and  District  of  Columbia,  and  that  they  are  hereby  released  from  all  obligations  to 
pay  any  of  the  unpaid  portions  of  said  tax." 


212 

Mr.  Hammond.  Mr.  Speaker,  until  that  report  is  in  the  possession  of  the 
House  and  the  views  of  the  minority  have  been  seen  by  the  different  mem- 
bers, discussion  upon  them  will  not  be  so  well  understood.  There  are  other 
gentlemen  here  who  desire  to  speak  on  the  general  topic,  or  incidentally 
connected  with  it,  who  do  not  desire  to  discuss  the  particular  views  expressed 
in  these  papers;  and  hence  I  will  reserve  the  time  to  which  I  am  entitled, 
and  allow  those  gentlemen  to  proceed  this  morning.  The  gentleman  from 
Mississippi  [Mr.  Barksdale]  wishes  to  speak  upon  the  subject,  as  his  State 
is  interested  in  the  matter.  I  will  therefore  yield  the  floor  to  him,  reserv- 
ing the  remainder  of  my  time. 

[Mr.  Barksdale  addressed  the  House.  His  remarks  will  appear  here- 
after.] 

[Mr.  Hepburn  addressed  the  committee.  His  remarks  will  appear  here- 
after.] 

Mr.  Price.  Mr.  Speaker,  it  seems  to  me  that  if  this  bill  and  its  effect  upon 
our  revenues  and  upon  the  several  States  were  thoroughly  understood  it 
would  have  but  little  support  in  this  House.  I  am  obliged  to  go  briefly 
over  the  history  of  the  matter,  and  I  will  do  so  as  rapidly  as  I  can,  avoiding 
as  far  as  possible  circumstances  already  referred  to  by  the  gentleman  from 
Iowa  [Mr.  Hepburn]. 

On  the  fifth  of  August,  1861,  this  Government  found  it  necessary  to  secure 
a  fund  which  it  did  not  possess.  It  adopted  the  plan  of  assessing,  not  upon 
the  individuals  of  a  State,  as  the  gentleman  from  Mississippi  [Mr.  Barks- 
dale] has  said,  but  upon  the  United  States,  a  tax  of  $20,000,000,  which  was 
apportioned  among  the  several  States  of  the  Union.  The  President  was 
authorized  to  divide  the  various  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of 
Columbia  into  convenient  collection  and  assessment  districts.  All  the 
paraphernalia  and  machinery  of  law  were  provided,  and  it  was  further 
enacted  that  where  a  State  voluntarily  assumed  the  payment  of  the  debt 
there  should  be  an  allowance  of  fifteen  per  cent  within  a  given  time  and 
ten  per  cent  within  another  period,  as  the  Government  would  thus  be  saved 
the  necessity  of  putting  the  machinery  of  collection  into  motion. 

Now,  that  law  stands  to-day  upon  the  statute  book  unrepealed.  Its  con- 
stitutionality may  have  been  doubted ;  but  it  has  never  yet  been  decided  to 
be  unconstitutional.  Under  it  $2,647,000  remain  yet  unpaid;  the  balance 
has  been  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  by  a  portion  of  the 
States  for  the  good  of  the  whole. 

The  Speaker.     The  hour  devoted  to  this  order  of  business  has  expired. 

Mr.  Price.     Then  I  shall  have  the  floor  when  the  subject  comes  up  again. 

The  Speaker.  The  gentleman  from  Wisconsin  [Mr.  Price]  will  then  be 
entitled  to  the  floor. 


Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  No.  35. 

CLAIM  OF  THE  WAR  TAXES. 

January  19,  1886 — Referred  to  the  House  Calendar,  and  ordered  to  be 
printed. 

Mr.  Hammond,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  submitted  the  fol- 
lowing 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  3.] 

The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  whom  was  referred  bill  H.  R.  3, 
have  considered  the  same,  and  submit  the  following  report: 


213 

By  an  Act  of  Congress  approved  March  3,  1883,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  was  required  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Georgia  $35,555  42  (see  22  U. 
S.  Stat.,  485).  It  was  not  paid  because  of  a  decision  of  Mr.  Lawrence, 
First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  placing  it  to  the  credit  of  the  State  on 
the  books  of  the  Treasury  against  a  sum  charged  there  against  the  State 
as  its  quota  of  a  direct  tax  levied  during  the  late  war. 

Bill  H.  R.  4703,  first  session,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  was  to  compel  pay- 
ment, that  decision  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  The  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee, by  Mr.  Hammond,  on  the  eleventh  of  March,  1884,  reported  in 
favor  of  the  passage  of  that  bill.  (See  Report  No.  752,  first  session.  Forty- 
eighth  Congress. 

On  the  second  of  May,  1884,  Mr.  Barksdale  of  Mississippi  introduced 
and  had  referred  to  said  committee,  a  bill  (H.  R.  6867)  to  authorize  settle- 
ments with  any  State,  and  directing  that  "in  such  settlement  and  adjust- 
ment no  charge  shall  be  made,  or  if  made,  shall  be  valid  by  way  of  set-off 
or  otherwise  against  any  State  oh  account  of  the  direct  war  tax  laid  by  Con- 
gress by  an  Act  approved  August  5,  1861." 

On  the  twentieth  of  May,  1884,  said  committee,  by  Mr.  Hammond, 
reported  thereon  as  follows: 

The  obstacles  in  the  way  of  paying  claims  of  States  against  the  General  Government, 

f rowing  out  of  the  chargeof  the  direct  war  tax  against  the  States  on  the  books  of  the 
'reasury  Department,  and  the  opinions  by  Treasury  officials  thereon,  as  well  as  the  rea- 
sons why  those  obstacles  should  be  removed,  are  set  forth  in  Report  No.  752  of  this  session 
of  Congress  in  the  Georgia  case,  made  on  the  — th  of  March,  1884. 

Your  committee  believe  that  the  relief  therein  recommended  for  that  State  should  be 
general  as  to  all  the  States  against  which  such  set-ofl"  of  war  taxes  is  being  or  may  be 
claimed,  and  report  accordingly.  They,  however,  report  a  substitute  for  bill  H.  R.  6867, 
and  recommend  the  passage  of  the  substitute  herewith  submitted. 

The  substitute  so  reported  was  this: 

That  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  other  person  charged 
with  or  concerned  in  the  payment  of  any  sum  of  money  from  the  United  States  to  any 
State  of  the  Union,  to  withhold  the  same  from  such  State,  or  its  duly  authorized  agent, 
by  reason  of  any  claim  that  such  State  is  bound  for  any  part  of  the  war  tax  levied  by  the 
Act  of  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  or  any  Act  amendatory  thereof,  or 
to  treat  the  said  tax  in  any  way  as  a  set-off  against  any  claim  in  favor  of  any  State. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  laws,  or  parts  of  laws,  and  all  rulings  or  decisions  of  any  department  of 
the  Government,  or  of  any  officer  thereof,  inconsistent  with  the  foregoing  section,  be  and 
are  hereby  repealed  and  annulled. 

This  report  was  No.  1658,  and  the  substitute  bill  H.  R.'7082,  first  session, 
Forty-eight  Congress.  The  substituted  bill  and  Georgia's  separate  bill  both 
remained  on  the  calendar,  bat  were  never  reached  in  the  last  Congress. 
The  present  bill  (H.  R.  3)  is  a  copy  of  said  substitute. 

This  committee  adopt  the  reasoning  of  the  former  Judiciary  Committee 
in  those  reports. 

While  the  former  was  on  the  Georgia  case  only,  it  covered  all  the  States 
in  like  condition.  Omitting,  therefore,  only  the  introductory  parts  already 
substantially  given,  your  committee  adopts  the  language  of  that  report  as 
follows: 

A  little  history  will  cast  much  light  upon  the  subject.  The  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  pro- 
vided for  collectors  and  assessors,  and  for  lists  of  property  "from  all  persons  owning,  pos- 
sessing, and  having  the  care  or  management  of  any  lands,"  etc.,  for  the  purpose  of  taxing 
ihe  same.    (Sections  fourteen  to  twenty-nine,  inclusive.) 

Section  thirty -three  enacted  that  "  the  taxes  so  assessed  shall  be  and  remain  a  lien  upon 
all  lands  and  other  real  estate  of  the  individuals  who  maj'^  be  assessed  for  the  same "  for 
two  years. 

Section  fifty-two  provided  that  as  soon  as  Federal  authority  could  be  restored  in  the 
Southern  States,  the  tax  should  be  collected  "  from  the  persons  residing  or  holding  property 
or  stocks  therein." 


214 

The  eighth  section  enacted : 

''  That  a  direct  tax  of  twenty  millions  of  dollars  be  and  is  hereby  annually  laid  upon  the 
United  States,  and  the  same  shall  be  and  is  hereby  apportioned  to  the  States,  respectively, 
in  manner  following:  *  *  *  To  the  State  of  Georgia,  five  hundred  and  eighty -four 
thousand  three  hundred  and  sixty-seven  and  one  third  dollars." 

To  the  other  States  according  to  their  populations,  respectively.  But  so  far  from  propos- 
ing to  tax  the  States  as  such,  by  section  thirteen,  it  expressly  exempted  from  such  taxes 
"all  property,  of  whatever  kind  *  *  *  belonging  to  the  "United  States  or  any  State," 
etc. 

Section  fifty-three  enacted  "  that  any  State  or  Territory  and  the  District  of  Columbia 
may  lawfully  assume,  assess,  collect,  and  pay  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  the 
direct  tax,  or  its  quota  thereof,  imposed  by  this  Act  upon  the  State,  Territory,  or  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  in  its  own  way  and  manner,  by  and  through  its  own  officers,  assessors, 
and  collectors,"  with  deduction  of  fifteen  per  cent  if  paid  by  the  thirtieth  of  June,  and  of 
ten  per  cent  if  paid  by  the  last  of  September  of  the  tax  year. 

It  further  provided,  "  that  whenever  notice  of  the  intention  to  make  such  payment  by 
the  State,  Territory,  and  the  District  of  Columbia  shall  have  been  given  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,"  then  the  United  States  shall  cease  trying  to  collect  by  its  officers,  unless 
such  State  should  "be  in  default."  In  that  event  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  "was  to- 
collect  all  or  any  part  of  said  direct  tax  the  same  as  though  said  State,  Territory,  or  Dis- 
trict had  not  given  notice  nor  ^assumed  to  levy,  collect,  and  pay  said  taxes  or  any  part 
thereof  (section  forty-six). 

Said  section  fifty-three  further  provided : 

"  That  the  amount  of  direct  tax  apportioned  to  any  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of 
Columbia,  shall  be  liable  to  be  paid  and  satisfied  in  whole  or  in  part  by  the  release  of  such 
State,  Territory,  or  District,  duly  executed  to  the  United  States,  of  any  liquidated  and  deter- 
mined claim  of  such  State,  Territory,  or  District,  of  equal  amount  against  the  United 
States,  with  the  same  abatement  as  if  it  were  paid  in  money."  (See  12  U.  S.  Stat.,  292-312.) 

Another  law  of  June  7,  1862,  applied  only  to  the  States  in  "  insurrection  and  rebellion." 
It  made  the  tax  upon  each  parcel  of  land  in  each  State  chargeable  with  the  tax  due  upon 
that  parcel,  plus  fifty  per  cent,  and  made  a  lien  on  the  lands  therefor.  It  provided  that 
"  the  owner  or  owners  of  said  lots  or  parcels  of  lands  "  might  discharge  them  by  paying^ 
within  a  fixed  time. 

It  provided  for  commissions  to  collect  the  tax  in  those  States,  to  sell  the  lands  of  default- 
ing owners,  etc.,  but  was  silent  as  to  any  assumption  of  the  tax  by  those  States.  (12  U.  S. 
Stat.,  422-426.) 

From  time  to  time  Congress  passed  other  Acts  as  to  direct  taxes,  but  none  of  them 
seem  to  have  any  bearing  upon  this  question.  For  instance,  that  of  May  13, 1862,  enlarged 
the  release  proviso  to  include  certain  expenditures  of  the  States  in  sending  troops  to  the 
war,  etc.  (76.,  384) ;  that  of  July  1, 1862,  limited  the  collection  to  one  year,  till  April,  1865 
{lb.,  489),  and  that  of  February  6, 1863,  provided  for  sales  of  lands  and  redemption  by  their 
"owners"  (76.,  640). 

All  the  States,  etc.,  "formally  assumed  the  payment  of  the  tax  except  Delaware,  the 
Territory  of  Colorado,  and  the  eleven  insurrectionary  States."  (Report  Commissioner 
Internal'  Revenue,  1870.    Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  24,  first  session' Forty-sixth  Congress,  236.) 

The  collection  of  them  was  suspended  as  to  unpaid  sums  by  Congress. 

In  1868  an  account  was  opened  upon  the  books  of  the  Treasury  Department  against  the 
State  of  Georgia  for  her  said  quota  of  the  direct  tax,  though  Georgia  had  in  no  way  assumed 
to  pay  the  same.  We  stop  not  now  to  discuss  why  that  was  done,  but  proceed  with  the 
history. 

The  Western  and  Atlantic  Railroad  belongs  to  Georgia.  The  State  bought  for  said  road 
some  of  the  rolling  stock  which  had  been  used  by  the  United  States  at  the  South  in  pros- 
ecuting the  late  war.  This  property  was  paid  for  in  cash,  the  last  payment  being  on  the 
sixteenth  of  October,  1867.  By  an  Act  approved  the  third  of  March,  1877,  because  of 
alleged  overvaluation  of  said  property  when  sold.  Congress  authorized  the  reopening  of 
said  account  and  adjustment  thereof. "  The  Act  required : 

"That  when  said  claims  shall  have  been  adjusted  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  this- 
Act,  the  Secretary  of  War  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  to  issue  his  warrant  on  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States  to  the  Governor 'of  Georgia  or  his  order,  for  the  amount  of 
money  i't  is  found  ought  to  be  refunded  to  said  railroad  on  account  of  said  settlement." 
(19  U.  S.  Stat.,  402-3.) 

The'amount  found  to  be  due  the  State  on  that  account  was  $199,038  58.  (See  Q.  M.  Gen.'s 
Report,  1877,  p.  120.) 

So  far  as  we  are  advised,  no  question  of  set-off  was  then  made.  Certainly  the  money 
was  paid  in  cash. 

On  the  third  of  March,  1879,  Congress  enacted  in  the  Sundry  Civil  Bill: 

"  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of 
Georgia  seventy-two  thousand  two  hundred  and  ninety-six  dollars  and  ninety-four  cents, 
for  advances  made  to  the  United  States  for  the  suppression  of  hostilities  by  the  Creek, 
Seminole,  and  Cherokee  Indians,  in  1835,  1836,  1837,  and  1838,  and  that  said  sum  be  paid 
-out  of  any  monev  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated." 

When  payment  was  requested,  the  Third  Auditor  called  attention  to  this  direct  tax 
account,  and  asked  information.  Mr.  Sherman,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  referred  to 
Hon.  A.  G.  Porter,  First  Comptroller,  "whether  said  amount  should  be  set  oft'  aganist  the 
amount  of  the  direct  tax  under  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  Acts  amendatory  thereto^ 


215 

apportioned  to  the  State."  He  wrote  an  opinion.  In  stating  the  facts,  after  giving  a  syn- 
opsis of  the  Acts  of  1861  and  of  June,  1862,  ante,  he  added :  "  The  State  of  Georgia  never 
assumed  the  amount  apportioned  to  that  State,  or  any  part  of  it."  And  then,  after  stating 
the  question,  he  said : 

"  If  the  sum  apportioned  is  a  debt  owing  by  the  State  of  Georgia  as  a  political  corpora- 
tion, then  it  may  be  assumed  that  it  ought  to  be  so  credited.  If,  however,  it  is  a  debt 
owing  by  the  persons  within  that  State,  whose  lands  have  been  taxed,  and  not  by  the  State 
itself,  then  payment  ought  not  to  be  withheld." 

He  then  called  attention  to  the  decision  of  Mr.  McCulloch,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in 
1866,  as  to  Texas,  and  said : 

"  Mr,  McCulloch  treated  the  apportionment  of  the  direct  tax  as  a  debt  owing  by  citizens 
of  Texas  belonging  to  the  class  whose  property  was  taxed,  and  not  as  a  debt  owing  by  the 
State  in  its  political  capacity." 

Proceeding,  he  said: 

"The  privilege  of  a  State  to  assume  implies  that  the  debt  before  the  assumption  was  not 
its  own.  Before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  the  person  whose  property  was  charged 
with  the  tax  owed  the  tax  to  the  State,  because  the  State  imposed  it  and  levied  and  col- 
lected it.  Since  the  adoption  of  that  instrument,  the  United  States  has  imposed  the  tax, 
and  has  itself  levied  and  collected  it.  The  obligation  of  the  citizen  is  therefore  to  the 
Union,  and  not  to  the  State,  and  he  and  not  the  State  is  the  debtor." 

Enforcing  his  view  by  various  citations,  urging  that  any  other  would  leave  the  States 
with  power  to  thwart  the  collection  of  taxes,  in  an  emergency,  directly  from  the  people, 
and  declaring  that  this  direct  tax  of  1861  could  still  be  collected  when  the  United  States 
wishes,  he  concluded: 

"  It  follows,  therefore,  that  it  is  my  duty  to  direct  that  the  sum  appropriated  to  the  State 
of  Georgia  shall  not  be  credited  as  upon  a  debt  owing  by  that  State  to  the  United  States, 
but  shall  be  paid  at  once  to  the  State." 

In  answer  to  a  resolution  by  the  Senate,  this  decision  was  transmitted,  "with  accom- 
panying papers,"  to  the  Senate,  by  Secretary  Sherman,  on  May  24,  1879.  (See  Senate  Ex. 
I)oc.  INo.  24,  first  session  Forty-sixth  Congress.) 

The  "accompanying  papers"  show  that,  before  this  opinion  was  made,  attention  was 
called  to  the  fact  that  Kansas,  Missouri,  West  Virginia,  and  other  States  had  been  cred- 
ited with  various  sums  there  stated.  Mr.  Porter  paid  no  attention  to  them,  because  (as 
we  presume)  they  had  assumed  their  respective  quotas,  and  thus  made  them  a  debt  against 
the  States  as  such.  Subsequently,  in  May,  1881,  Mr.  Lawrence,  the  successor  of  Mr.  Por- 
ter, decided  the  Kansas  case.  His  opinion  contains  thirty -three  headnotes  and  twenty- 
live  sub-headnotes.  Those  which  are  material,  in  our  opinion,  to  the  present  discussion, 
are  as  follows : 

"  In  May,  1879,  it  was  decided  )yy  the  then  First  Comptroller  that  the  direct  tax  appor- 
tioned to  the  State  of  Georgia  by  the  Acts  of  August  5,  1861,  and  of  June  7,  1862,  was  not  a 
debt  of  the  corporate  State,  which  had  not  by  an  Act  assumed  it ;  and  that  although  the 
tax  had  not  been  paid,  yet  money  due  from  the  United  States  to  the  State  must  be  paid  to 
the  latter,  and  could  not  be  used  by  way  of  set-ofF  or  in  discharge  of  any  part  of  the  claim 
for  direct  taxes.  (S.  Ex.  Doc.  No.  24,  first  session  Forty-sixth  Congress.)  That  conclu- 
sion is  correct  in  law.  The  decision  of  that  question  was  affected  somewhat  by  the  Act  of 
June  7,  1862,  not  applicable  to  the  question  now  present.  But  the  same  result  would  be 
reached  without  reference  to  it.  Under  the  Constitution,  Congress  cannot  levy  or  enforce 
the  collection  of  a  tax  or  assessment  on  a  corporate  State  which  has  not  assumed  it.  The 
National  Government  does  not  operate  on  States  in  the  collection  of  revenues,  but  on 
persons  or  property,  or  both.    (2  Lawrence,  Compt.-  Dec,  310.) 

He  further  held  that  his  predecessors  had  decided  that  Kansas  had  voluntarily  assumed 
her  quota  of  the  tax;  that  he  was  bound  by  that  decision, and  that  therefore  a  sum  appro- 
priated to  Kansas  should  not  be  paid,  but  must  be  placed  to  her  credit  against  said 
assumed  debt,    (lb.  324,) 

The  decision  of  Lawrence,  Comptroller,  made  twelfth  May,  1883,  refusing  to  pay  this 
money  to  Georgia,  has  thirty  headnotes.  We  do  not  believe  that  we  need  differ  with  any 
of  them  but  the  sixth,  seventh,  tenth,  and  nineteenth.  We  call  attention  to  them,  and 
the  eighth,  also.    They  are: 

"6.  The  First  Comptroller  had  jurisdiction  and  authority  in  May,  1868,  to  certify  a  bal- 
ance as  due  from  the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  States,  for  the  quota  of  direct  taxes 
apportioned  to  said  State  by  the  Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861.    (12  Stat.,  294.) 

"7.  The  Comptroller  now  in  office  cannot  inquire  whether  the  Comptroller  in  office  in 
May,  1868,  who  then  certified  a  balance  due  from  the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  States 
on  account  of  direct  taxes,  had  before  him  sufficient  evidence  to  authorize  such  action,  or 
whether  on  such  evidence  as  he  then  had  he  jproperly  construed  the  law.  The  Judicial 
Courts  or  Congress  can  furnish  the  only  relief  m  such  case,  if  the  Comptroller  erred  in 
charging  the  State  with  such  liability. 

"  8.  Congress  may  by  law  require  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department 
to  set  off  a  claim  of  the  United  States  against  a  Stal;e,  when  such  State  demands  payment 
of  a  claim  due  to  it  from  the  United  States,  although  in  such  case  Congress  might  not 
under  the  Constitution  charge  such  corporate  State  with  a  liability  and  enforce  its  pay- 
ment in  any  other  mode  except  by  such  set-off. 

"9.  The  legislation  of  Congress  in  relation  to  the  quota  of  direct  taxes  apportioned  to 
Missouri  and  West  Virginia  seems  in  principle  to  recognize  the  correctness  of  the  judg- 
ment of  the  First  Comptroller,  by  which,  in  May,  1868,  he  certified  a  balance  as  due  from 


216 

the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  States  for  its  quota  of  the  direct  tax  apportioned  to  that 
State  bv  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861. 

"10.  'The  Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861  (12  Stat.,  311,  Section  53),  provides  a  special 
statutory  mode  of  paying  the  quota  of  tax  apportioned  to  anj^  State  by  declaring  that  it 
^  shall  he  liable  to  he  paid''  by  set-off' of  any  liquidated  and  determined  claim  of  such  State 

*  *    *    against  the  United  States.' 

"  19.  The  balance  certified  by  the  First  Comptroller,  May  29,  1868,  as  due  to  the  United 
States  from  the  State  of  Georgia,  for  its  quota  of  direct  tax,  under  the  Act  of  August  5, 
1861,  has  not  been  in  any  form  set  aside  or  rendered  inoperative." 

First~T>\di  any  Comptroller  ever,  in  any  fair  sense,  try  to  raise  a  debt  against  Georgia 
for  this  tax?    Mr.  Lawrence,  in  this  opinion,  stated  the  facts  in  this  language: 

"  May  11, 1868,  by  report  No.  55448  the  Fifth  Auditor  '  examined  and  adjusted  an  account 
between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Georgia,'  and  found  '  that  the  sum  of  $584,- 
367  33  is  due  from  said  State  to  the  United  States  *  *  *  for  amount  of  direct  tax 
imposed  and  apportioned  by  the  eighth  section  of  the  Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861, 
'  amount  to  be  debited  to  the  State  of  Georgia  on  the  books  of  the  Register  of  the  Treasury.' 

"May  29,  1868,  the  First  Comptroller  certified  to  the  Register  a  balance  due  and  payable 
as  stated  in  the  above  report,  and  it  was  accordingly  charged,  on  the  Register's  books,  as 
a  debt  due  from  the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  United  States. 

"  September  3, 1874,  the  Fifth  Auditor,  by  Report  No.  5,  adjusted  an  account  between  the 
United  States  and  T.  P.  Robb,  Samuel  A.  Pancoast,  and  John  C.  Bates,  Commissioners  of 
Direct  Tax  for  the  State  of  Georgia,  from  August  1,  1865,  to  December  15,  1866,  and  found 
them  chargeable  with  'amount  of  direct  tax  laid  upon  the  State  of  Georgia  by  Act  of 
Congress  approved  August  5,  1861,  |584,367  33.'  The  report  shows  costs  chargeable  to  the 
State  $649  72,  and  finds  the  Commissioners  entitled  to  credit  for  salaries  and  expenses 
$9,835  06,  amount  of  taxes  remaining  uncollected  $501,939  86,  amount  refunded  to  tax- 
payers on  account  of  collections  improperly  made  $46  17,  and  cash  deposited  $71,407  75 
covered  into  the  Treasury  by  miscellaneous  warrants  numbered  and  dated  in  1866,  respect- 
ively, 747  March  31,  524  June  25,  697  June  30,  598  September  29,  and  726  December  31. 

"  January  9,  1875,  the  Acting  First  Comptroller  certified  a  balance  of  $1,788  22  '  due  to 
the  United  States  from  the  Commissioners,  as  stated  in  the  above  report.'  The  amount  of 
these  warrants-  was  placed  to  the  credit  of  the  State  of  Georgia  in  the  Register's  office  on 
said  account  for  direct  taxes." 

In  May,  1868,  the  amount  fixed  by  the  statute  as  the  quota  of  Georgia  was  charged  to 
her,  and  afterwards,  in  1874,  the  same  amount  was  charged  by  the  same  office  to  the 
United  States  Commissioners  of  direct  tax  for  the  State  of  Georgia,  and  they  were  credited 
with  various  sums  collected  and  uncollected,  and  among  others  an  "  amount  refunded  to 
taxpayers  on  account  of  collections  improperly  made,  $46  17."  The  dealing  with  "  tax- 
payers" showed  that  the  State  was  not  considered  the  debtor.  The  "taxpayers"  owed 
only  if  Georgia  had  not  assumed  the  debt.  Taking  the  two  accounts  together,  it  seems 
plain  that  the  account  was  so  stated  only  for  convenience  of  keeping  the  books  of  the 
Department.  Any  other  view  makes  us  to  assume  that  the  officer  raising  the  account 
acted  in  ignorance  of  the  law.  The  First  Comptroller  could  have  no  jurisdiction  under  the 
Act  of  1861  to  state  an  account  against  any  State  which  had  not  assumed  the  debt. 

It  is  true,  as  stated  in  the  tenth  headnote,  supra,  that  said  Act  provides  a  special  statutory 
mode  of  paying  the  quota  of  tax  apportioned  to  any  State,  by  declaring  that  it  "  shall  be 
liable  to  be  paid"  by  set-off"  "of  any  liquidated  and 'determined  claim  of  such  State     *    * 

*  against  the  United  States."  But  more  is  true.  That  "special  statutory  mode  of  pay- 
ing" is  in  the  words  which  Mr.  Lawrence  omitted  from  the  quotation,  viz.:  "&?/  the  release 
of  such  State  *  *  *  duly  executed  to  the  United  States.''  By  such  release,  with  a  view  to 
such  credit,  the  State  consents  to  the  account  against  it,  and  thus  assumes  the  debt.  It 
was  by  such  a  release  that  Missouri  was  credited  (see  Act  of  July  17,  1862,  in  said  Senate 
Ex.  Doc.  24,  p.  197).  The  same  is  true  as  to  West  Virginia,  under  the  Act  of  February  25, 
1867  {lb.,  207).  They  assumed  the  debt  and  sought  to  have  certain  credits  allowed.  Geor- 
gia did  not  assume  It,  and  therefore  nothing  in  their  cases  authorizes  the  raising  of  such 
an  account  against  Georgia. 

Mr.  Lawrence  admits  that  this  action  of  his  predecessor  is  the  only  obstacle,  and  that 
it  is  not  in  the  way  of  payment  if  it  was  "unauthorized  or  void."  If  no  statute  author- 
ized it,  it  was  "unauthorized."  No  statute  created  such  a  debt  except  by  the  consent  of 
the  State,  and  the  State  did  not  consent.  There  is  no  pretense  that  the  First  Comptroller 
found  such  fact  upon  inquiry.  It  is  only  stated  that  he  did  an  act  from  which  it  is 
inferred  that  he  found  such  fact.  But  that  does  not  follow;  for  he  may  have  raised  the 
account  for  other  reasons.  Congress  cannot  make  such  a  debt  against  a  State  without  its 
consent.  There  was  no  consent,  and  therefore  the  act  raising  such  account,  when  consid- 
ered as  to  whether  that  Act  made  Georgia  the  debtor,  is  "void." 

We  admit  that  "  all  claims  or  demands  whatever  bv  the  United  States  *  *  *  shall 
be  settled  and  adjusted  in  the  Department  of  the  Treasury  "  (Rev.  Stat.,  §  236).  But  there 
must  be  a  claim  or  demand  to  adjust.  The  statute  declared  there  could  be  none  against 
a  State  till  it  assented,  and  Georgia  never  assented.  So,  while  the  Second  Comptroller 
must  "examine  all  accounts"  settled  by  the  Auditors  {lb.,  273),  and  the  First  Au- 
ditor "must  examine  all  accounts  accruing  in  the  Treasury  Department"  {lb.,  277);  there 
must  be  a  debtor,  by  law,  before  an  account  can  exist  for  examination. 

It  is  useless  to  examine  whether  Congress  "  may  so  far  declare  a  State  indebted  to  the 
United  States  as  to  secure  satisfaction  of  the  debt  by  withholding  from  it  by  set-off,  as  in 


217 

this  case,  money  admitted  to  be  due  from  the  United  States  to  such  State,"  for  Congress 
has  never  made  such  declaration.  Nor  need  we  discuss  whether  Congress  had  power  "to 
enforce  the  collection  of  tax  against  the  corporate  property  of  the  State,"  though  Mr. 
Lawrence  said  "the  power  to  do  so  in  time  of  war  seems  undoubted."  Mr.  Thaddeus 
Stevens,  when  he  presented  the  direct  tax  bill  ifO  Congress,  in  the  midst  of  war,  and  to 
raise  means  promptly  to  prosecute  the  war,  said  "  Congress  has  no  constitutional  power 
to  assess  taxes  upon  a  State.  It  must  assess  it  upon  the  individual"  (Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  24, 
ante,  page  41).  And  the  Act  levying  the  tax  expressly  exempted  all  State  property.  It 
sought  not  to  exercise  such  power  if  it  existed. 

Suppose  we  admit  that  Congress  might  legislate  as  the  eighth  headnote  declares;  Con- 
gress has  not  so  legislated  in  this  case.  On  the  contrary,  an  effort  to  have  it  so  legislate 
was  defeated.  On  the  sixth  of  December,  1882,  the  bill  was  reached  and  taken  up  m  the 
House. 

Mr.  Holman,  as  soon  as  the  report  had  been  read,  said: 

"  The  question  is  presented  whether  or  not  this  sum  should  be  paid  by  the  United 
States  directly  to  the  State  of  Georgia,  or  whether  it  shall  be  allowed  as  a  credit  to  that 
State  on  the  amount  of  direct  tax  apportioned  against  the  State  under  the  Act  of  August 
5,  1861." 

Mr.  Turner  replied : 

"  The  direct  tax  is  a  tax  due  by  the  people  of  the  State,  not  by  the  State  in  its  corporate 
or  aggregate  capacity,  etc,"    (Congressional  Record,  vol.  59,  page  59.) 

The  issue  thus  made  was  debated  pro  and  con.    Mr.  Holman  moved  to  add  to  the  bill — 

^'Provided,  however,  that  the  said  sum,  $35,555  42,  shall  not  be  paid  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  until  the  sum  due  the  United  States  of  direct  taxes  apportioned  to  the  State 
of  Georgia  under  the  Act  entitled  '  An  Act  to  provide  increased  revenue  from  imports  to 
pay  the  interest  on  the  public  debt,  and  for  other  purposes,'  approved  August  5, 1861,  shall 
nave  been  adjusted.    (lb.,  65.) 

A  motion  to  strike  out  the  enacting  clause  was  lost;  the  ayes  were  fifty -two  and  the 
nays  were  seventy-six. 

Mr.  Holman's  proposed  amendment  was  also  lost  by  ayes  fifty-three  to  nays  ninety. 
An  effort  to  adjourn  was  lost  by  eighty  nays  to  fifty  yeas.  Upon  the  passage  of  the  bill 
the  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  and  it  was  passed  by  j^eas  ninety-six  to  nays  eighty. 
{lb.,  68.)  The  report  was  read  in  the  Senate,  and  the  bill  passed  without  debate.  (Congres- 
sional Record,  vol.  62,  pp.  3660,  3670-3672.) 

Again,  we  think  the  payments  made  to  the  State  of  Georgia,  aforesaid,  were  at  least 
waivers  of  any  such  claim  by  the  United  States  as  is  here  asserted,  and  did  set  aside  and 
render  inoperative  said  certification  of  the  account  in  May,  1868,  if  it  ever  were  operative 
for  the  purpose  claimed. 

Mr.  Lawrepce  does  not  claim  that  the  decision  of  his  predecessor  was  correct.  He 
seems  to  admit,  in  the  opinion,  that  he  would  reverse  it  if  he  thought  he  could.  He  really 
suggests  this  legislation  in  his  annual  report  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1883.  His 
language  was  this : 

"In  1868  the  First  Comptroller  then  in  office  certified  balances  due  to  the  United  States 
from  several  States  respectively,  for  direct  taxes  due  and  unpaid,  under  the  direct  tax  Act 
of  August  5,  1861  (12  Stat.,  292),  and  such  States  were  accordingly  debited  on  the  books  in 
the  office  of  the  Register  of  the  Treasury.  It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  any  corporate 
State  was  properly  so  charged,  but  as  the  Comptroller  has  jurisdiction  of  the  suoject- 
matter,  his  action,  even  if  erroneous,  cannot  be  treated  as  void  by  the  Comptroller  now  in 
office.  The  result  is,  that  money  due,  or  which  may  become  due,  from  the  United  States 
to  any  State  so  charged,  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  so  charged,  cannot  be  paid  to  the 
State,  but,  by  usage  and  law  is  to  be  applied  by  way  of  set-off.  It  may  thus  happen  that 
some  States  will  in  this  mode  pay  the  direct  tax,  while  others  indebted  in  the  same  form 
will  continue  so  indebted,  and  hence  there  will  seem  to  be  inequality,  if  not  injustice,  in 
the  dealings  between  the  United  States  and  such  States.  The  money  appropriated  by  the 
Act  of  March  3,  1883  (22  Stat.,  485),  "to  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain  money 
expended  by  said  State  for  the  common  defense  in  1877,"  was  withheld  and  applied  by 
way  of  set-off  on  the  sum  charged  against  said  State  for  direct  taxes.  If  it  be  the  purpose 
of  Congress  that  moneys  due  to  such  States  shall  be  paid,  it  is  respectfully  suggested  that 
provision  should  be  made  authorizing  payment  without  reference  to  the  charge  against 
any  such  States." 

Suppose  this  money  cannot  be  paid,  and  that  Mr.  Lawrence  is  right  that  the  judicial 
Courts  or  Congress  can  furnish  the  only  relief  in  such  case,  if  the  Comptroller  erred  in 
charging  the  State  with  such  liability;  still  this  bill  should  pass,  and  for  that  very  reason. 
The  United  States  admits  this  indebtedness  to  Georgia ;  it  admits  Georgia  is  not  in  debt 
to  the  United  States,  and  it  has  formally  undertaken  to  pay  this  debt  to  Georgia.  Why 
should  she  be  remitted  to  the  Court  of  Claims  ?    We  see  no  reason  therefor. 

By  reason  of  a  real  or  supposed  obstacle  unknown  to  Congress  when  the  bill  for  pay- 
ment was  passed,  the  debt  of  the  United  States  has  not  been  paid.  An  officer  of  the 
United  States  erroneously  put  that  obstacle  in  the  way.  It  should  be  removed,  unless 
there  is  some  other  reason  to  the  contrary. 

Is  there  any?  There  is  none,  unless  the  United  States  should  refuse  to  pay  simply 
because  Georgia  did  not  pay  the  direct  tax.  Laying  aside  the  question  whether  this  tax 
Act  was  operative  within  the  States  with  which  the  IJnited  States  was  then  at  war,  a  refu- 
sal on  that  ground  seems  to  be  unjust  for  these  and  other  reasons:  Georgia  does  not  owe 
the  debt  to  the  United  States,  but,  at  most,  parts  of  it  are  due  from  certain  of  her  citizens 


218 

respectively.  Only  those  citizens  who  in  1861  owned  the  lands  taxed  owe  the  taxes,  and 
no  property  is  bound  for  the  tax  except  those  lands.  If  Secretary  McCulloch  was  right  in 
his  Texas  decision,  ante,  and  Mr.  Porter  was  right  in  the  Georgia  case,  ante,  Georgia  could 
not,  after  a  fixed  day  in  1862,  assume  the  debts,  if  she  wished.  Georgia  cannot  collect 
these  taxes  without  such  assumption. 

It  does  not  seem  just  to  collect  from  Georgia,  as  a  State,  any  part  of  a  debt  she  does  not 
owe,  nor  from  her,  as  representing  the  land  owners  of  1861,  by  withholding  money  which 
belongs  to  Georgia  as  a  State,  and  if,  as  representing  any  citizens,  as  representing  all  her 
citizens,  whether  owning  lands  in  1861,  or  anything  else  at  any  time. 

It  does  not  seem  that  the  United  States  will  ever  collect  those  direct  taxes  of  1861.  But 
could  it  and  should  it  determine  to  do  so,  equal  collections  should  be  made  from  all  the 
Southern  States  simultaneously.  To  make  Georgia  pay  indirectly  by  withholding  from 
her  admitted  dues  from  the  United  States,  has  not  been  the  policy  of  the  Government,  as 
appears  from  the  payments  already  of  over  a  quarter  of  a  million  of  dollars  to  her  in 
cash  since  said  account  was  raised  in  1868.  We  do  not  think  it  should  become  the  policy 
of  the  Government.    Therefore,  we  recommend  that  the  bill  do  pass. 

The  committee  therefore  recommend  the  passage  of  the  bill. 


Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  35,  part  2. 

WAR  TAXES  OF  1861. 

January  29,  1886 — Referred  to  the  House  Calendar  and  ordered  to  be 
printed. 

Mr.  Hepburn,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  submitted  the  fol- 
lowing as  the 

VIEWS   OF   THE   MINORITY. 
[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  3.] 

The  officers  of  the  Treasury  are  required  to,  and  do,  set  off  sums  of  money 
due  from  the  United  States  to  any  State  against  any  sums  that  may  be  due 
from  the  State. 

These  officers  have  for  many  years  regarded  the  unpaid  tax  levied  upon 
the  United  States  and  apportioned  among  the  States  by  the  eighth  section 
of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  5,  1861,  as  a  debt  due  from  the 
delinquent  State,  and  have  treated  the  same  as  a  proper  set-off  against  any 
moneys  due  to  said  State.  Thus  the  sum  of  $35,555  42  was  appropriated 
to  pay  to  the  State  of  Georgia,  by  the  Act  approved  March  3,  1883,  but  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  declined  to  make  such  payment,  because  he 
found,  that  on  the  books  of  the  Treasury,  there  was  charged  against  the 
State  of  Georgia  the  sum  of  $512,959  48,  that  had  been  for  many  years, 
certainly  since  the  year  1868,  regarded  as  a  debt  due  from  the  State  of 
Georgia  to  the  United  States,  being  the  balance  of  the  direct  tax  appor- 
tioned to  said  State  under  the  Act  above  referred  to,  and  amendments 
thereto. 

House  Bill  No.  3  forbids  the  officers  of  the  Treasury  to  treat  the  unpaid 
portions  of  such  direct  tax  as  a  debt  or  in  any  way  as  a  set-off  against  any 
claim  in  favor  of  any  State.  The  majority  of  the  committee  have  recom- 
mended the  passage  of  the  bill.  The  undersigned  are  of  the  opinion  that 
it  should  not  pass,  at  least  until  it  undergoes  material  modification. 

Accompanying  a  letter  of  the  Hon.  Charles  J.  Folger,  late  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  addressed  to  the  Hon.  George  F.  Edmunds,  under  date  of 
March  29,  1884,  was  the  following: 


219 


Statement  of  the  Condition  of  the  Direct  Tax  Accounts  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  and 
the  District  of  Columbia,  under  Adts  of  August  5, 1861,  and  June  7, 1862. 


State  or  Territory. 


Amount  Im- 


Amount  Paid. 


Fifteen  per  Cent 
Allowance. 


Balance  Due 
United  States. 


Alabama 

Arkansas 

California. 

Colorado. 

Connecticut 

Dakota 

Delaware 

District  of  Columbia 

Florida ". 

Georgia 

Illinois  ..- 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi _. 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New  Hampshire 

New  Jersey 

New  Mexico 

New  York 

North  Carolina 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode  Island 

Tennessee ._ 

Texas. 

Utah. 

Vermont 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

Washington 

Wisconsin 

South  Carolina 


$529,313  33 

261,886  00 

254,538  67 

22,905  33 

308,214  00 

3,241  33 

74,683  33 

49,437  33 

77,522  67 

584,367  33 

1,146,551  33 

904,875  33 

452,088  00 

71,743  33 

713,695  33 

385,886  67 

420,826  00 

436,823  33 

824,581  33 

501,763  33 

108,424  00 

413,084  67 

761,127  33 

19,312  00 

4,592  67 

218,406  67 

450,134  00 

62,648  00 

2,603,918  67 

576,194  67 

1,567,089  33 

35,140  67 

1,946,719  33 

116,963  67 

669,498  00 

355,106  67 

26,982  00 

211,068  00 

+729,071  02 

+208,479  65 

7,755  33 

519.688  67 

363,570  67 


$8,491 

184,082 

247,941 

1,516 

261,987 


74,683 

49,437 

43,529 

71,407 

974,568 

769,144 

384,274 

71,743 

606,641 

268,515 

357,702 

371,299 

700,894 

426,498 

92,245 

74,742 

646,958 

19,312 

4,592 

185,645 

382,614 

62,648 

2,213,330 

386,194 

1,332,025 

35,140 

1,654,711 

99,419 

387,722 

130,008 


$46,232  10 
"*4350'50' 


171,982  70 

135,731  30 

67,813  20 


107,054  30 


63,123  90 
65,523  50 
123,687  19 
75,264  50 
16,278  60 


411,869  10 
(See  note.) 


32,761  00 

67,519  17 

(See  note.) 

390,587  81 


235,063  40 


292,007  90 
17,544  56 


179,407 
515,569 
181,300 
4,268 
429,196 
377,901 


31,660  20 
27',i72'72' 


39,346  43 
$14,390  63 


$520,821  87 

77,803  82 

6,597  54 

21,388  44 


3,241  33 


33,992  86 
512,959  58 


117,371  55 


338,342  10 


190,000  22 


281,775  94 

225,098  61 

26,982  00 


213,501  30 


3,487  17 
51,145  56 


*  Included  on  compromise. 

+  Joint  resolution  February  25,  1867,  authorized  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  transfer  $208,479  65  of  the 
amount  originally  appropriated  to  Virginia  to  the  State  of  West  Virginia. 
J  Overpaid. 

NOTE. 
Nebraska : 

Amount  collected $4,281  60 

Amount  allowed  by  Act  of  August  7, 1882  (22  Stat.,  p.  314) 15,030  40 

$19,312  00 

New  Mexico : 

Amount  allowed  by  Act  of  July  1,  1862  ( 12  Stat.,  p.  489) 62,648  00 

Nearly  $17,500,000  of  the  original  $20,000,000  levied  is  shown  to  have 
been  paid,  and  something  more  than  $2,500,000  now  stands  charged  against 
fourteen  States,  more  than  $2,000,000  of  it  being  against  the  States  of  Ala- 
bama, Georgia,  Mississippi,  North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Texas,  and  Virginia. 

It  is  more  than  probable  that  no  part  of  this  sum  of  $2,500,000  will  ever 
be  realized  by  the  Government,  except  as  it  may  be  used  as  a  set-off  against 
claims  like  that  of  Georgia,  first  above  referred  to,  and  the  effect  of  this 
bill  (H.  R.  No.  3)  will,  in  behalf  of  all  of  the  delinquent  States,  be  as 
effective  as  payment,  or  a  release. 


220 

The  question  is  a  pertinent  one:  AVhy  should  the  delinquent  States  be 
released?  The  majority  of  the  committee  answer  that  the  claim  against 
Georgia  and  the  other  delinquent  States  is  not  a  debt  due  from  the  State, 
making  a  distinction  between  Georgia  as  a  political  corporation,  and  the 
whole  of  the  people  of  Georgia.  Indeed,  it  is  claimed  that  a  tax  cannot 
be  levied  upon  a  State.  We  do  not  see  why.  There  might  be  difficulty  in 
many  instances  to  make  collections  if  the  State  refused  to  perform  its  duty 
by  prompt  payment.  There  are  but  few  of  the  States  that  are  the  owners  of 
real  estate  beyond  that  that  is  used  in  the  performance  of  the  functions  of 
government.  The  United  States  is  greatly  interested  in  the  full  perform- 
ance by  each  of  the  States  of  all  the  duties  imposed  upon  them,  and  could 
not  consent  to  throw  any  impediment  in  the  way  of  such  performance,  as 
would  be  the  case  if  the  Government  should  seize  the  capitol,  the  prisons, 
the  hospitals,  and  the  colleges  belonging  to  a  non-paying  State  and  sell 
them  in  order  to  realize  the  tax.  Hence,  in  the  case  of  one  of  the  reluctant 
and  non-performing  States,  the  Government  crosses  the  State  line  and  lays 
hold  upon  the  citizen,  levies  upon  his  land,  and  forces  him  to  make  the  pay- 
ment that  is  due  from  his  State,  and  that  is  owed  by  him,  and  payment  of 
which  is  forced  from  him,  only  because  his  State  is  not  in  such  condition 
as  to  be  forced  to  pay,  except  at  the  expense  of  its  usefulness  as  a  govern- 
ing factor. 

The  Federal  Government  is  always  forced  to  deal  with  the  individual 
when  the  State  refuses  the  performance  of  duty.  When  States  were  in 
rebellion  they  were  forced  to  the  resumption  of  duties  through  and  by^the 
exertions  of  the  Government  upon  the  individual  members  of  the  society 
composing  and  constituting  the  State.  There  is  no  other  medium  through 
which  the  Government  can  act.  It  coerces  the  State  through  the  indi- 
vidual. Hence  the  machinery  of  the  law  of  August  5, 1861,  providing  for 
the  levy  on  and  sale  of  the  property  of  individuals  and  collections  from 
them.  If  each  of  the  States  had  been  in  sympathy  and  accord  with  the 
purposes  of  the  Government,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  the  sections 
following  the  eighth  of  the  Act  of  1861  would  never  have  been  enacted. 
The  Congress  would  have  contented  itself  with  the  imposition  of  the  tax 
upon  the  United  States  and  "  apportionment  among  the  several  States." 
But  it  was  known  that  several  of  the  States  were  hostile  to  the  Government; 
that  they  would  not  pay  the  sum  apportioned  to  them,  and  for  this  reason, 
and  in  our  judgment  only  for  this  reason,  do  we  find  these  provisions  in  the 
law  that  look  to  the  collection  of  the  sums  not  paid  by  the  States  from  the 
citizens  of  the  delinquent  States.  We  do  not  regard  these  provisions  of 
the  Act  as  do  the  majority,  as  evidencing  a  purpose  on  the  part  of  the 
law-makers  to  exempt  the  State  from  indebtedness  and  impose  indebtedness 
primarily  upon  the  individual  citizens  composing  the  State.  The  practice 
of  our  Courts  illustrates  this  principle:  A  debt  is  due  from  a  county  as  a 
political  corporation.  Its  officers  refuse  payment  and  refuse  to  levy  a  tax 
to  meet  a  judgment  rendered.  The  Court  will  send  the  Marshal  and  his 
deputies  to  make  levies  and  collections,  to  lay  hold  of  the  individuals 
composing  the  political  corporation  that  is  derelict  in  its  duty. 

But  it  is  said  by  the  report  of  the  majority  that  the  tax  cannot  be  a  debt 
due  from  the  States  to  be  relieved,  because  those  States  had  not  assumed 
the  debt.  We  submit  that  if  the  power  to  tax  exists,  it  exists  independ- 
ently of  consent.  In  the  obligation  to  pay  taxes  there  are  none  of  the 
elements  of  a  contract.  The  power  to  levy  these  taxes  came  from  the 
Constitution.  The  language  is,  "  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  lay 
and  collect  taxes."  "  Direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several 
States."    Not  among  the  people  of  the  several  States,  but  among  the  States. 


221 

If  the  United  States  by  a  levy  and  apportionment  of  a  direct  tax  among 
the  States  does  not  impose  an  obhgation,  a  debt,  upon  the  States,  by  what 
right  do  the  States  assume  such  tax  and  thus  impose  a  burden  on  the 
people  ?  The  power  of  a  State  to  levy  taxes  upon  the  people  is  limited  to 
the  necessities  of  its  present  or  prospective  indebtedness.  These  needs 
alone  bound  the  power  of  taxation.  If  the  States  did  not  owe,  or  if  it  was 
not  certain  that  at  a  future  day  the  State  would  owe,  various  debts,  then 
we  submit  the  act  of  taking  the  people's  money  through  the  exercise  of 
the  taxing  power  would  be  the  veriest  robbery.  What  right  has  a  State  to 
assume  the  individual  debt  of  A,  B,  or  C,  its  citizens?  If  this  tax  was  a 
debt  from  individuals,  where  did  the  several  States  get  the  power  to  assume 
it?  Is  the  payment  of  the  debts  of  citizens  one  of  the  functions  of  State 
government?  The  property  of  individuals  can  only  be  taken  for  public 
uses,  but  here  we  find  a  State  seizing  the  property  of  one  citizen  to  pay 
what  the  majority  say  is  the  private  debt  of  an  individual  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States.  It  cannot  be  said  that  the  prospect  of  a  fifteen 
per  cent  fee  can  invest  the  State  with  the  right  to  become  a  collecting 
agent  and  force  its  citizens  to  a  payment  of  their  debts,  not  by  the  use  of 
the  State  Courts,  but  by  the  use  of  the  taxing  power  of  the  State. 

In  our  belief,  the  State  had  no  power  to  assume  the  debt  of  another,  but 
being  indebted  to  the  United  States,  it  had  the  power  to  assume  the  duty 
of  the  levy  and  collection  of  such  sums  of  money  as  would  pay  the  debt, 
and  by  so  doing  relieve  the  United  States  from  the  expense  and  responsi- 
bility of  making  the  collections  from  many  individuals,  and  by  this 
assumption  earn  the  fifteen  or  ten  per  cent  promised  in  the  law. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  there  are  many  reasons  indicating  the  im- 
policy of  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  collect  the  sums  due 
from  the  delinquent  States.  Yet  a  large  majority  of  the  States  have  paid 
their  full  apportionment.  Why  should  those  States  which  have  refused  to 
perform  their  duty  receive  rewards  that  are  not  bestowed  upon  those  that 
were  faithful  to  duty? 

We  are  willing  that  the  provisions  of  House  Bill  No.  3  should  be  enacted 
into  law,  but  only  on  the  condition  that  the  States  are  all  placed  in  an 
equally  just  position.  If  Georgia,  that  has  not  paid,  is  to  be  released,  then 
Illinois,  that  has  paid  in  full,  should  be  repaid  all  she  has  paid  of  this 
direct  tax,  as  well  as  all  of  her  expenses  incurred.  The  duty  of  prompt 
payment  of  the  sums  apportioned  to  each  of  the  States  rested  upon  all 
alike.  It  was  Georgia's  duty  to  pay  promptly,  just  as  it  was  the  duty  of 
Illinois.  The  latter  did  pay,  and  did  discharge  in  full  her  indebtedness. 
The  other  utterly  refused  to  pay,  and  now  demands,  through  House  Bill 
No.  3,  that  the  United  States  shall  surrender  the  only  means  by  which  it 
is  practicable  to  force  partial  and  long  deferred  payment.  We  do  not 
believe  there  is  justice  in  this  demand;  certainly  not  without  all  of  the 
States  are  restored  to  the  position  occupied  before  the  levy  was  made  and 
the  debt  imposed. 

We  favor  the  restoration  of  all  of  the  States  to  the  status  occupied  before 
the  imposition  of  the  tax  by  the  remission  of  all  that  part  of  the  120,000,000 
not  paid  to  the  States  delinquent,  and  the  return  of  all  sums  of  money  paid 
to  the  States  making  the  payments,  together  with  the  percentage  of  ten  or 
fifteen  per  cent  due  to  the  States  making  collections. 

And  as  a  measure  that  would  establish  proper  relations  of  equality 
between  the  States  and  Territories,  in  regard  to  said  direct  taxes  levied, 


222 

we  report  the  following  substitute  for  House  Bill  No.  3,  and  recommend  its 
passage. 

W.  P.  HEPBURN. 

A.  A.  RANNEY. 

A.  X.  PARKER. 

L.  B.  CASWELL. 

Strike  out  from  House  Bill  No.  3  all  after  the  enacting  clause,  and  insert 
the  following  words: 

"That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  directed  to 
state  an  account  with  each  of  the  States  and  Territories  of  the  United 
States  as  they  existed  on  the  fifth  day  of  August,  1861,  and  with  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  and  in  said  statement  of  account,  he  shall  place  to  the 
credit  of  each  State,  Territory,  and  District  all  moneys  paid  by  either  of 
them  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  or  all  moneys  that  were  col- 
lected by  the  agents  of  the  United  States,  from  either  of  them  or  from  their 
citizens,  as  direct  taxes  levied  upon  the  United  States,  and  apportioned 
among  the  several  States,  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  Congress 
approved  August  5,  1861,  and  the  amendments  thereto,  and  he  shall  also 
place  to  the  credit  of  each  State,  Territory,  and  District  such  sums  of  money 
as  were  earned  by  any  such  States,  Territories,  or  District,  by  reason  of 
collections  of  said  direct  taxes  made  by  them  and  paid  into  the  Treasury 
of  the  United  States;  and  said  Secretary  is  directed  to  pay  to  each  of  said 
States,  Territories,  or  District  the  sums  under  said  accountings  found  to  be 
due,  and  credited  to  them,  respectively,  and  the  said  Secretary  is  further 
directed  to  write  opposite  to  any  charges  of  debit  that  now  stand  on  the 
books  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  against  any  State,  Territory,  or 
the  District  of  Columbia,  by  reason  of  the  direct  tax  above  mentioned,  the 
words  '  remitted  in  full,'  and  the  said  unpaid  portion  of  said  direct  tax  is 
hereby  remitted  in  full  to  the  States,  Territories,  and  District  of  Columbia, 
and  they  are  each  hereby  released  from  all  obligation  to  pay  any  of  the 
unpaid  portions  of  said  tax." 

EXHIBIT  No.  37. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  35,  part  2. 

WAR  TAXES  OF  1861. 

January  29,  1886 — Referred  to  the  House  Calendar  and  ordered  to  be 
printed. 

Mr.  Hepburn,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  submitted  the  fol- 
lowing as  the 

VIEWS   OF   THE   MINORITY. 
[To  accompany  bill  H,  R.  3.] 

The  officers  of  the  Treasury  are  required  to,  and  do,  set  off  sums  of  money 
due  from  the  United  States  to  any  State  against  any  sums  that  may  be 
due  from  the  State. 

These  officers  have  for  many  years  regarded'  the  unpaid  tax  levied  upon 
the  United  States  and  apportioned  among  the  States  by  the  eighth  section 
of  the  Act  of  Congress,  approved  August  5,  1861,  as  a  debt  due  from  the 
delinquent  State,  and  have  treated  the  same  as  a  proper  set-off  against 
any  moneys  due  to  said  State.  Thus  the  sum  of  $35,555  42  was  appropri- 
ated to  pay  to  the  State  of  Georgia,  by  the  Act  approved  March  3,  1883, 
but  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  declined  to  make  such  payment,  because 


223 

he  found  that  on  the  books  of  the  Treasury  there  was  charged  against  the 
State  of  Georgia  the  sum  of  $512,959  48,  that  had  been  for  many  years, 
certainly  since  the  year  1868,  regarded  as  a  debt  due  from  the  State  of 
Georgia  to  the  United  States,  being  the  balance  of  the  direct  tax  appor- 
tioned to  said  State  under  the  Act  above  referred  to,  and  amendments 
thereto. 

House  Bill  No.  3  forbids  the  officers  of  the  Treasury  to  treat  the  unpaid 
portions  of  such  direct  tax  as  a  debt  or  in  any  way  as  a  set-off  against  any 
claim  in  favor  of  any  State.  The  majority  of  the  committee  have  recom- 
mended the  passage  of  the  bill.  The  undersigned  are  of  the  opinion  that 
it  should  not  pass,  at  least  until  it  undergoes  material  modification. 

Accompanying  a  letter  of  the  Hon.  Charles  J.  Folger,  late  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  addressed  to  the  Hon.  George  F.  Edmunds,  under  date  of 
March  29,  1884,  was  the  following: 


Statement  of  the  Condition  of  the  Direct  Tax  Accounts  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  and 
the  District  of  Columbia,  under  Acts  of  August  5, 1861,  and  June  7, 1862. 


State  or  Territory. 


Amount  Im- 
posed. 


Amount  Paid. 


Fifteen  per 
Cent  Allowance. 


Balance  Due 
United  States. 


Alabama 

Arkansas  

California 

Colorado. - 

Connecticut- 

Dakota 

Delaware 

District  of  Columbia 
Morida 


Ceorgia 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky.. 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland- 

Massachusetts  .. 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New  Hampshire 

New  Jersey 

New  Mexico 

New  York 

North  Carolina- . 

Ohio- ---- 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode  Island 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

"West  Virginia 

Washington 

Wisconsin 

South  Carolina . . . 


$529,313  33 

261,886  00 

254,538  67 

22,905  33 

308,214  00 

3,241  33 

74,683  33 

49,537  33 

77,522  67 

584,367  33 

1,146,551  33 

904,875  33 

452,088  00 

71,743  33 

713,695  33 

385,886  67 

420,826  00 

436,823  33 

824,581  33 

501,763  33 

108,524  00 

413,084  67 

764,127  33 

19,312  00 

4,592  67 

218,406  67 

450,134  00 

62,648  00 

2,603,918  67 

576,194  67 

1,567,089  33 

35,140  67 

1,946,719  33 

116,963  67 

,  669,498  00 

355,106  67 

26,982  00 

211,068  00 

•fc  729,071  02 

+  208,479  65 

7,755  33 

519,688  67 

363,570  67 


18,491  46 

184,082  18 

247,941  13 

1,516  89 

261,981  90 


*  74,683  33 

49,437  33 

43,529  81 

71,407  75 

974,568  63 

769,144  03 

384,274  80 

71,743  33 

606,641  03 

268,515  12 

357,702  10 

371,299  83 

700,894  14 

426,498  83 

92,245  40 

74,742  57 

646,958  23 

+ 19,312  00 

4,592  67 

185,645  67 

382,614  83 

X  62,648  00 

2,213,330  86 

386,194  45 

1,332,025  93 

35,140  67 

1,654.711  43 

99,419  11 

287,722  06 

130,008  06 


179,407  80 
515,569  72 
181,306  93 
4,268  16 
429,196  68 
377,961  30 


$46,232  10 
'*4,356'50 


171,982  70 

135,731  30 

67,813  20 


107,054  30 


63,123  90 
65,523  50 
123,687  19 
75,264  50 
16,278  60 


111,869  10 
(See  note.) 


32,761  00 

67,519  17 

(See  note.) 

390,587  81 


235,063  40 


292,007  90 
17,544  56 


31,660  20 

27,172' 72' 


39,346  43 
X  14,390  63 


$520,821  27 

77,803  82 

6,597  54 

21,388  44 


3,241  33 


33,992  86 
512,959  58 


117,371  55 


338,342  10 


190,000  22 


281,775  94 

225,098  61 

26,982  00 


213,501  30 


3,487  17 
51,145  56 


*  Included  on  compromise. 

t  Joint  resolution,  February  25,  authorized  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  transfer  $208,479  65  of  the  amount 
originally  appropriated  to  Virginia  to  the  State  of  West  Virginia. 
X  Overpaid. 


224 

NOTE. 
Nebraska : 

Amount  collected- _ $4,281  60 

Amount  allowed  by  Act  of  August  7, 1882  (22  Stat.,  p.  314) 15,030  40 

$19,312  00 

New  Mexico : 

Amount  allowed  by  Act  of  July  1,  1862  (12  Stat.,  p.  489) 62,648  00 

Nearly  $17,500,000  of  the  original  $20,000,000  levied  is  shown  to  have 
been  paid,  and  something  more  than  $2,500,000  now  stands  charged  against 
fourteen  States,  more  than  $2,000,000  of  it  being  against  the  States  of  Ala- 
bama, Georgia,  Mississippi,  North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Texas,  and  Virginia. 

It  is  more  than  probable  that  no  part  of  this  sum  of  $2,500,000  will  ever 
be  realized  by  the  Government,  except  as  it  may  be  used  as  a  set-off  against 
claims  like  that  of  Georgia,  first  above  referred  to,  and  the  effect  of  this 
bill  (H.  R.  No.  3)  will,  in  behalf  of  all  the  delinquent  States,  be  as  effective 
as  payment,  or  a  release. 

The  question  is  a  pertinent  one:  Why  should  the  delinquent  States  be 
released?  The  majority  of  the  committee  answer  that  the  claim  against 
Georgia  and  the  other  delinquent  States  is  not  a  debt  due  from  the  State y 
making  a  distinction  between  Georgia  as  a  political  corporation,  and  the 
whole  of  the  people  of  Georgia.  Indeed,  it  is  claimed  that  a  tax  cannot  be 
levied  upon  a  State.  We  do  not  see  why.  There  might  be  difficulty  in 
many  instances  to  make  collections  if  the  State  refused  to  perform  its  duty 
by  prompt  payment.  There  are  but  few  of  the  States  that  are  the  owners 
of  real  estate  beyond  that  that  is  used  in  the  performance  of  the  functions 
of  government.  The  United  States  is  greatly  interested  in  the  full  per- 
formance by  each  of  the  States  of  all  the  duties  imposed  upon  them,  and 
could  not  consent  to  throw  any  impediment  in  the  way  of  such  perform- 
ance, as  would  be  the  case  if  the  Government  should  seize  the  Capitol,  the 
prisons,  the  hospitals,  and  the  colleges  belonging  to  a  non-paying  State  and 
sell  them  in  order  to  realize  the  tax.  Hence,  in  the  case  of  one  of  the 
reluctant  and  non-performing  States,  the  Government  crosses  the  State  line 
and  lays  hold  upon  the  citizen,  levies  upon  his  land,  and  forces  him  to 
make  the  payment  that  is  due  from  his  State  and  that  is  owed  by  him^ 
and  payment  of  which  is  forced  from  him,  only  because  his  State  is  not  in 
such  condition  as  to  be  forced  to  pay,  except  at  the  expense  of  its  useful- 
ness as  a  governing  factor. 

The  Federal  Government  is  always  ft)rced  to  deal  with  the  individual 
when  the  State  refuses  the  performance  of  duty.  When  States  were  in 
rebellion  they  were  forced  to  the  resumption  of  duties  through  and  by  the 
exertions  of  the  Government  upon  the  individual  members  of  the  society 
composing  and  constituting  the  State.  There  is  no  other  medium  through 
which  the  Government  can  act.  It  coerces  the  State  through  the  indi- 
vidual. Hence  the  machinery  of  the  law  of  August  5,  1861,  providing  for 
the  levy  on  and  sale  of  the  property  of  individuals  and  collections  from 
them.  If  each  of  the  States  had  been  in  sympathy  and  accord  with  the 
purposes  of  the  Government,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  the  sections  fol- 
lowing the  eighth  of  the  Act  of  1861  would  never  have  been  enacted.  The 
Congress  would  have  contented  itself  with  the  imposition  of  the  tax  upon 
the  United  States  and  "apportionment  among  the  several  States."  But  it 
was  known  that  several  of  the  States  were  hostile  to  the  Government;  that 
they  would  not  pay  the  sum  apportioned  to  them,  and  for  this  reason,  and 
in  our  judgment  only  for  this  reason,  do  we  find  these  provisions  in  the  law 
that  look  to  the  collection  of  the  sums  not  paid  by  States  from  the  citizens 
of  the  delinquent  States.  We  do  not  regard  these  provisions  of  the  Act 
as  do  the  majority,  as  evidencing  a  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  law  makers 


225 

to  exempt  the  State  from  indebtedness  and  impose  indebtedness  primarily 
upon  the  individual  citizens  composing  the  State.  The  practice  of  our 
Courts  illustrates  this  principle.  A  debt  is  due  from  a  county  as  a  political 
corporation.  Its  officers  refuse  payment  and  refuse  to  levy  a  tax  to  meet  a 
judgment  rendered.  The  Court  will  send  the  Marshal  and  his  deputies  to 
make  levies  and  collections,  to  lay  hold  of  the  individuals  composing  the 
political  corporation  that  is  derelict  in  its  duty. 

But  it  is  said  by  the  report  of  the  majority  that  the  tax  cannot  be  a  debt 
due  from  the  States  to  be  relieved,  because  those  States  had  not  assumed 
the  debt.  We  submit  that  if  the  power  to  tax  exists,  it  exists  independ- 
ently of  consent.  In  the  obligation  to  pay  taxes  there  are  none  of  the  ele- 
ments of  a  contract.  The  power  to  levy  these  taxes  came  from  the  Con- 
stitution. The  language  is,  "  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  lay  and 
collect  taxes."  "Direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several 
States."     Not  among  the  people  of  the  several  States,  but  among  the  States. 

If  the  United  States  by  a  levy  and  apportionment  of  a  direct  tax  among 
the  States  does  not  impose  an  obligation,  a  debt,  upon  the  States,  by  what 
right  do  the  States  assume  such  tax  and  thus  impose  a  burden  on  the  peo- 
ple ?  The  power  of  a  State  to  levy  taxes  upon  the  people  is  limited  to  the 
necessities  of  its  present  or  prospective  indebtedness.  These  needs  alone 
bound  the  power  of  taxation.  If  the  State  did  not  owe,  or  if  it  was  not 
certain  that  at  a  future  day  the  State  would  owe,  various  debts,  then  we 
submit  the  act  of  taking  the  people's  money  through  the  exercise  of  the 
taxing  power  would  be  the  veriest  robbery.  What  right  has  a  State  to 
assume  the  individual  debt  of  A,  B,  or  C,  its  citizens?  If  this  tax  was  a 
debt  from  individuals,  where  did  the  several  States  get  the  power  to  assume 
it?  Is  the  payment  of  the  debts  of  citizens  one  of  the  functions  of  State 
government?  The  property  of  individuals  can  only  be  taken  for  public 
uses,  but  here  we  find  a  State  seizing  the  property  of  one  citizen  to  pay 
what  the  majority  say  is  the  private  debt  of  an  individual  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States.  It  cannot  be  said  that  the  prospect  of  a  fifteen 
per  cent  fee  can  invest  the  State  with  the  right  to  become  a  collecting  agent 
and  force  its  citizens  to  a  payment  of  their  debts,  not  by  the  use  of  the 
State  Courts,  but  by  the  use  of  the  taxing  power  of  the  State. 

In  our  belief  the  State  had  no  power  to  assume  the  debt  of  another,  but 
being  indebted  to  the  United  States,  it  had  the  power  to  assume  the  duty 
of  the  levy  and  collection  of  such  sums  of  money  as  would  pay  the  debt, 
and  by  so  doing  relieve  the  United  States  from  the  expense  and  responsi- 
bility of  making  the  collections  from  many  individuals,  and  by  this  assump- 
tion earn  the  fifteen  or  ten  per  cent  promised  in  the  law. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  there  are  many  reasons  indicating  the  im- 
policy of  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  collect  the  sums  due 
from  the  delinquent  States.  Yet  a  large  majority  of  the  States  have  paid 
their  full  apportionment.  Why  should  those  States  which  have  refused  to 
perform  their  duty  receive  rewards  that  are  not  bestowed  upon  those  that 
were  faithful  to  duty? 

We  are  willing  that  the  provisions  of  House  Bill  No.  3  should  be  enacted 
into  law,  but  only  on  the  condition  that  the  States  are  all  placed  in  an 
equally  just  position.  If  Georgia,  that  has  not  paid,  is  to  be  released,  then 
Illinois,  that  has  paid  in  full,  should  be  repaid  all  she  has  paid  of  this 
direct  tax,  as  well  as  all  of  her  expenses  incurred.  The  duty  of  prompt 
payment  of  the  sums  apportioned  to  each  of  the  States  rested  upon  all 
alike.  It  was  Georgia's  duty  to  pay  promptly,  just  as  it  was  the  duty  of 
Illinois.  The  latter  did  pay  and  did  discharge  in  full  her  indebtedness. 
15"^ 


226 

The  other  utterly  refused  to  pay,  and  now  demands,  through  House  Bill 
No.  3,  that  the  United  States  shall  surrender  the  only  means  by  which  it  is 
practicable  to  force  partial  and  long  deferred  payment.  We  do  not  believe 
there  is  justice  in  this  demand;  certainly  not  without  all  of  the  States  are 
restored  to  the  position  occupied  before  the  levy  was  made  and  the  debt 
imposed. 

We  favor  the  restoration  of  all  of  the  States  to  the  status  occupied  before 
the  imposition  of  the  tax  by  the  remission  of  all  that  part  of  the  $20,000,- 
000  not  paid  to  the  States  delinquent,  and  the  return  of  all  sums  of  money 
paid  to  the  States  making  the  payments,  together  with  the  percentage  of 
ten  or  fifteen  per  cent  due  to  the  States  making  collections. 

And  as  a  measure  that  would  establish  proper  relations  of  equality  be- 
tween the  States  and  Territories  in  regard  to  said  direct  taxes  levied,  we 
report  the  following  substitute  for  House  Bill  No.  3,  and  recommend  its 
passage. 

W.  P.  HEPBURN. 
A.  A.  RANNEY. 
A.  X.  PARKER. 
L.  B.  CASWELL. 

Strike  out  from  House  Bill  No.  3  all  after  the  enacting  clause,  and  insert 
the  following  words: 

"  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  directed  to 
state  an  account  with  each  of  the  States  and  Territories  of  the  United 
States  as  they  existed  on  the  fifth  day  of  August,  1861,  and  with  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  and  in  said  statement  of  account  he  shall  place  to  the 
credit  of  each  State,  Territory,  and  District,  all  moneys  paid  by  either  of 
them  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  or  all  moneys  that  were  col- 
lected by  the  agents  of  the  United  States,  from  either  of  them  or  from  their 
citizens,  as  direct  taxes  levied  upon  the  United  States,  and  apportioned 
among  the  several  States,  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  Congress 
approved  August  5,  1861,  and  the  amendments  thereto;  and  he  shall  also 
place  to  the  credit  of  each  State,  Territory,  and  District,  such  sums  of 
money  as  were  earned  by  any  such  States,  Territories,  or  District,  by  reason 
of  collections  of  said  direct  taxes  made  by  them  and  paid  into  the  Treas- 
ury of  the  United  States;  and  said  Secretary  is  directed  to  pay  to  each  of 
said  States,  Territories,  or  District,  the  sums  under  said  accountings  found 
.to  be  due,  and  credited  to  them,  respectively;  and  the  said  Secretary  is 
further  directed  to  write  opposite  to  any  charges  of  debit  that  now  stands 
on  the  books  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  against  any  State,  Ter- 
ritory, or  the  District  of  Columbia,  by  reason  of  the  direct  tax  above  men- 
tioned, the  words  '  remitted  in  full,'  and  the  said  unpaid  portion  of  said 
direct  tax  is  hereby  remitted  in  full  to  the  States,  Territories,  and  District 
of  Columbia,  and  they  are  each  hereby  released  from  all  obligation  to  pay 
any  of  the  unpaid  portions  of  said  tax." 


EXHIBIT  No.  38. 

STATEMENT. 

The  intention  evidently  was  to  substitute  the  House  Bill  as  introduced 
in  the  Forty-ninth  Congress  by  Hon.  W.  T.  Price  of  Wisconsin,  to  wit,  H. 
R.  2776,  or  that  introduced  by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley  of  California,  to  wit, 
H.  R.  164,  the  same  being  identical  with  the  bill  as  favorably  recommended 


227 

for  passage,  and  as  reported  upon  by  the  honorable  House  Committee  on " 
Claims  in  the  Forty-eighth  Congress,  and  which  is  as  follows,  to  wit : 

That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  credit  to  each  State  and 
Territory  of  the  United  States,  and  the  Distriqt  of  Columbia,  a  sum  equal  to  all  collec- 
tions made  from  said  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia  under  the  Act 
of  Congress  approved  August  tifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  and  the  amendatory 
Acts  thereto,  with  an  additional  sum  of  fifteen  per  centum  upon  all  amounts  so  collected 
where  such  States  or  Territories  or  the  District  of  Columbia  have  collected  the  same  with- 
out cost  to  the  United  States. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  moneys  still  due  to  the  United  States  on  the  quota  of  direct  tax  appor- 
tioned by  section  eight  of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-one,  are  hereby  remitted  and  relinquished. 

Sec.  3.  That  there  is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  other- 
wise appropriated,  such  sums  as  may  be  necessary  to  reimburse  each  State,  Territory, 
and  the  District  of  Columbia  for  all  money  found  due  to  them  under  the  provisions  of 
this  Act;  and  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States  is  hereby  directed  to  pay  the  same; 
provided,  that  where  the  sums,  or  any  part  thereof,  credited  to  any  State,  Territory,  or 
the  District  of  Columbia,  have  been  collected  from  the  citizens  thereof,  either  directly,  or 
hy  sale  of  property,  such  sums  shall  be  held  in  trust  by  such  State,  Territory,  or  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia  for  the  benefit  of  those  of  its  citizens  from  whom  they  were  collected, 
or  their  legal  representatives. 

The  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  wit.  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  No. 
142,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session,  shows  that  the — 


State  of. 


Has  Paid. 


And  now  Owes. 


Georgia 

Mississippi 
Alabama .. 


$71,407  75 

74,742  57 

8.491  46 


$512,959  58 
338,342  10 
520,821  87 


So  that  the  proper  substitute  of  the  Minority  Report  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee,  to  wit,  of  H.  R.  164,  or  of  H.  R.  2776,  if  adopted,  would  re- 
lieve these  particular  States  absolutely.  But  in  the  States  of  Virginia, 
Tennessee,  South  Carolina,  Arkansas,  and  Florida,  lands  in  each  thereof 
were  sacrificed  in  order  to  pay  these  direct  taxes,  and  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  has  heretofore  held  that  the  titles  so  acquired  are  valid. 
(98  U.  S.,  page  517.) 

The  account  between  these  last  named  States  and  the  United  States 
now  is  as  follows,  to  wit: 


The  State  of. 

Has  Paid. 

And  now  Owes. 

Virginia'- _ 

$515,569  72 

387,722  06 

377,961  30 

184,082  18 

43,529  81 

$213,501  30 

281,775  94 
*  14,390  63 

77  803  82 

Tennessee 

South  Carolina 

Arkansas    . 

Florida 

33,992  86 

'■  Overpaid. 

(See  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  No.  142,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.) 

Respectfully, 

WILLIAM  E.  EARLE, 

For  South  Carolina. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 

For  California. 


228 


EXHIBIT  No.  39. 

ORDER  OF  BUSINESS. 


The  Speaker.  The  call  of  the  committees  for  reference  of  report  having 
been  gone  through  with,  the  Chair  will  now,  under  the  rule,  call  commit- 
tees for  the  consideration  of  bills  for  one  hour.  The  hour  begins  at  eighteen 
minutes  before  one  o'clock.  The  call  rests  with  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary.  The  gentlemen  from  Wisconsin  [Mr.  Price]  is  entitled  to  the 
floor  for  twelve  minutes  on  the  bill  (H.  R.  3)  to  prevent  the  claim  of  the 
war  taxes  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  Acts  amendatory  thereof, 
by  the  United  States,  as  set-off  against  States  having  claims  against  the 
General  Government. 

Mr.  Price.  Mr.  Speaker,  by  an  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  5, 
1861,  a  tax  was  levied  on  "the  United  States,"  which  was  apportioned 
among  the  several  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia  as 
follows: 


Alabama $529,313  33 

Arkansas 261,886  00 

California 254,538  67 

Colorado. 22,905  33 

Connecticut , 308,214  00 

Dakota 3,241 .33 

Delaware 74,683  33 

District  of  Columbia 49,437  33 

Florida 77,522  67 

Georgia 584,367  33 

Illinois 1,146,551  33 

Indiana 904,875  33 

Iowa 452,088  00 

Kansas 71,743  33 

Kentucky 713,695  33 

Louisiana 385,886  97 

Maine 420,826  00 

Maryland 436,823  33 

Massachusetts 824,581  33 

Michigan.. 501,763  33 

Minnesota 108,424  00 

Mississippi 413,084  67 


Missouri  $761,127  33 

Nebraska 19,312  00 

Nevada.... 4,592  67 

New  Hampshire 218,406  67 

New  Jersey.- 450,134  00 

New  Mexico... 62,648  00 

New  York 2,603,918  67 

North  Carolina 576,194  67 

Ohio 1,567,089  33 

Oregon 35,140  67 

Pennsylvania 1,946,719  33 

Rhode  Island 116,963  67 

Tennessee 669,498  67 

Texas. 355,106  00 

Utah 26,982  00 

Vermont 211,068  00 

Virginia-. 729,071  02 

West  Virginia 208,479  65 

Washington 7,755  33 

Wisconsin 599,688  67 

South  Carolina 363,570  67 


And  that  Act  further  provided  that  the  President  should  divide  the 
States  and  Territories  into  convenient  collection  districts  and  appoint  asses- 
sors and  collectors  in  each  district  so  formed.  Oaths  were  to  be  taken  and 
bonds  filed  by  such  officers,  and  they  were  empowered  and  required  to 
collect  the  same,  and,  when  necessary,  to  seize  and  sell  property-  of  indi- 
viduals in  either  of  said  districts  to  an  amount  equal  to  the  whole  tax  so 
levied,  and  all  the  necessary  machinery  created  for  getting  the  tax  or 
property  to  an  amount  equal  thereto. 

Section  53  of  said  Act  provided  that  any  State  or  Territory  might  assume, 
collect,  and  pay  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  the  tax  thus  im- 
posed, and  in  all  cases  where  the  tax  should  be  thus  collected  without  cost 
to  the  General  Government  a  credit  or  allowance  of  fifteen  per  cent  should  be 
allowed  to  apply  as  part  of  said  sum  up  to  a  certain  date  and  ten  per  cent 
up  to  a  certain  other  time.  That  law  stands  to-day  on  the  statute  books 
of  the  nation  unrepealed  and  only  partially  executed.  Some  of  the  States 
have  paid  the  full  amount  of  their  quota,  some  only  a  part,  and  some  none 
at  all.     There  remains  yet  due  and  unpaid  the  sum  of  $2,624,509  59. 

No  disposition  is  manifested  by  those  in  arrears  to  pay  it,  and  no  effort 
is  being  made  to  collect  it,  except  by  the  process  of  offsetting  any  sum  or 


229 

sums  that  from  time  to  time  may  become  due  from  the  General  Govern- 
ment to  such  dehnquent  States.  We  were  officially  informed  in  1884,  by 
the  then  Secretary  of  the  United  States  Treasury,  that  the  rule  up  to  that 
time  had  been  invariable,  as  applied  to  all  the  States  in  arrears,  to  apply 
all  such  sums  as  from  time  to  time  might  become  due  to  the  States  from 
the  United  States  toward  the  liquidation  of  such  balances,  and  we  all  know 
that  such  is  still  the  rule. 

The  last  official  statement  of  the  United  States  Treasurer  shows  that  the 
State  of  Georgia  owes  the  United  States  $512,959  58. 

In  1883,  by  an  Act  of  Congress,  the  sum  of  $35,555  42  was  appropriated 
to  that  State  in  full  of  a  claim  which,  while  it  may  have  been  just,  was 
very,  very  old.  The  accounting  officer  of  the  Treasury,  acting  in  harmony 
with  a  rule  which  was  not  only  just,  but  was  the  same  that  had  been,  was 
then,  and  still  is  applied  to  each  and  every  other  State,  refused  to  pay  over 
the  money  to  the  State  of  Georgia,  but  proposed  to  enter  it  as  a  credit  in 
partial  liquidation  of  her  long-standing  indebtedness  to  the  General  Gov- 
ernment. This  last  financial  transaction  has  probably  led  to  the  intro- 
duction of  the  bill  under  consideration — a  bill  to  prevent  the  claim  of  the 
war  taxes  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  Acts  amendatory  thereof, 
by  the  United  States,  as  set-off  against  States  having  claims  against  the 
General  Government. 

This  is  an  impartial  statement  of  the  case  presented  to  the  House  for 
our  consideration  and  approval  or  disapproval. 

If  this  bill  should  pass  it  takes  from  the  Government  its  last  and  only 
practical  or  available  means  of  ever  collecting  a  dollar  of  the  $2,624,509  54 
which  is  due  to  it. 

That  the  assessment  or  apportionment  of  the  said  tax  was  fair  and 
equitable  is  not  doubted.  That  it  was  necessary  no  one  will  deny.  That 
it  created  a  debt  against  each  of  the  States  is  not  disputed.  That  it  was 
cheerfully  paid  by  some  of  the  States,  and  forcibly  collected  from  others, 
in  part  or  in  whole,  is  just  as  certain. 

Then  can  we  be  asked  with  reason  or  propriety  to  say,  by  the  passage  of 
this  bill,  that  the  American  Congress  will  punish  the  States  or  the  people 
who  responded  to  the  call  of  the  country  in  its  hour  of  peril  and  dire 
necessity,  by  discriminating  against  them;  that  the  American  Congress  is 
willing  to  change  a  rule,  which  has  been  inflexibly  enforced  against  them, 
to  favor  a  State  or  a  people  who  were,  at  least,  dilatory  in  meeting  their 
just  proportion  of  this  measure  for  the  common  good? 

Are  we  willing  to  say,  by  the  passage  of  this  bill,  that  Georgia,  which 
has  paid  only  $71,407  75,  and  owes  yet  $512,959  58;  that  Mississippi,  that 
has  paid  only  $74,742  57,  and  owes  $338,342  10;  that  Alabama,  which 
has  paid  only  $8,491  40,  and  owes  $520,821  87,  shall  be  released  from 
their  liability ,  when  Louisiana  has  paid  in  money  $268,515  12,  when  North 
Carolina  has  "paid  in  money  $386,194  45,  when  by  the  sale  of  lands  there 
has  been  forcibly  collected  from  Arkansas  $184,082  18,  from  South  Caro- 
lina $377,961  30,  from  Virginia  $515,569  72,  from  Florida  $43,529  80? 

By  what  process  of  reasoning  can  an  honest  man  conclude  that  there  is 
an  element  of  justice  in  such  a  course  ?  And  yet  a  vote  for  this  bill  would 
be  to  indorse  this  glaring  wrong. 

I  have  thus  far  only  adverted  to  the  wrong  which  would  be  done  to  cer- 
tain of  the  Southern  States  by  passing  this  bill,  but  its  injustice  becomes 
still  more  apparent  when  it  is  considered  that  of  this  same  tax,  for  the 
common  good  of  all  the  States: 


230 


California  has  paid $247,941  13 

Connecticut ..-    308,214  00 

Delaware 74,683  33 

District  of  Columbia 49,437  33 

Illinois 1,146,551  33 

Indiana 904,875  33 

Iowa 452,088  00 

Kansas - 71,743  33 

Kentucky 713,695  33 

Maine... 420,826  00 

Maryland 436,823  33 

Massachusetts 1 .    824,581  33 

Michigan 501,763  33 


Minnesota .-.  $108,424  00 

Missouri 761,127  33 

New  Hampshire 218,406  67 

New  Jersey 450,134  00 

New  Yorl^: 2,603,918  67 

Ohio ....1,567,089  33 

Oregon 35,140  67 

Pennsylvania .1,946,719  33 

Rhode  Island 116,963  67 

Vermont 211,068  00 

West  Virginia... 208,479  65 

Wisconsin 468,543  11 


In  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  I  had  the  honor  to  introduce  a  bill  which 
received  a  favorable  recommendation  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  to 
which  it  was  referred,  the  purpose  of  which  was  to  do  just  what  is  con- 
templated by  the  bill  under  consideration,  to  wit:  relieve  all  of  the  States 
and  Territories  from  all  balances  against  them  growing  out  of  said  tax  of 
1861  and  Acts  amendatory  thereof;  but  another  provision,  coupled  with 
the  foregoing,  wafe  one  that  provided  that  all  sums  which  had  been  paid 
by  any  of  the  States  and  Territories  should  be  credited  to  them  severally 
on  the  books  of  the  United  States  Treasury,  and  any  balance  found  due 
after  such  credit  had  been  entered  should  be  paid  to  them  respectively. 

This  bill  was  never  reached  and  considered  by  the  House,  but  the  Com- 
mittee on  Claims  having  the  same  in  charge  submitted  a  favorable  report, 
a  copy  of  which  I  herewith  submit  and  make  a  part  of  my  argument: 

Mr.  Price,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  following  report  to  accompany 
bill  H.  R.  6047. 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R.  6047)  to  adjust  certain 
accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  several  States  and  Territories  and  the  District 
of  Columbia,  has  had  the  same  under  consideration,  and  reports : 

Under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861  (12  Stat,  at  L.,  292),  a  direct  tax  of  $20,000,000  was  laid 
upon  the  United  States,  and  was  apportioned  among  the  different  States  and  Territories 
and  the  District  of  Columbia,  based  on  population. 

By  section  fifty-three  it  was  provided  that  each  State  might  assume  the  payment  of  its 
quota  thereof,  and  if  it  did  so  on  or  before  the  second  Tuesday  in  February  next,  after  the 
passage  of  the  Act,  it  should  hav.e  a  deduction  of  fifteen  per  cent  on  so  much  of  the  quota 
of  direct  tax  apportioned  to  such  State  in  lieu  of  the  compensation  of  officers  for  collect- 
ing the  tax  as  was  actually  paid  into  the  Treasury  on  or  before  the  last  day  of  June,  and 
a  deduction  of  ten  per  cent  upon  so  much  as  should  be  paid  into  the  Treasury  thereafter 
and  before  the  last  dav  of  September  of  that  year. 

Some  of  the  loyal  States  assumed  their  quotas,  while  others  did  not  do  so.  Of  those 
which  assumed  the  payment  some  paid  prior  to  the  last  day  of  June,  others  prior  to  the 
last  day  of  September,  while  some  of  them  have  only  paid  in  part,  and  still  owe  balances. 

Of  the  loyal  States  which  did  not  assume  their  quotas,  the  amount  thereof  has  been 
collected  from  some  in  full  by  the  First  Comptroller  stopping  in  the  Treasury  sums  going 
to  them  on  account  of  five  per  cents  from  sales  of  public  lands  and  other  allowed  claims 
in  their  favor  against  the  United  States. 

An  Act  for  the  collection  of  direct  taxes  in  insurrectionary  districts  within  the  United 
States  was  passed  June  7,  1862  (12  Stat,  at  L.,  422).  This  contained  no  provision  for  the 
assumption  of  its  quota  by  the  insurrectionary  States.  Under  this  Act  a  portion  of  the 
quota  of  some  of  the  States  was  collected  directly  from  the  owners  of  real  estate,  and 
other  portions  were  collected  by  sales  of  real  estate,  while  from  others  nothing  whatever 
was  collected. 

Since  the  war,  as  in  the  case  of  loyal  States,  the  First  Comptroller  has  withheld  and 
applied  to  the  quotas  of  these  States  such  sums  as  they  were  entitled  to  receive  on  account 
or  five  per  cents  from  the  sales  of  public  lands  or  upon  other  allowed  claims  in  favor  of 
these  States  respectively  against  the  United  States. 

The  quota  of  each  State  is  not  a  liability  upon  the  State  as  such,  but  upon  the  real  estate 
of  the  people  of  the  State,  and  was  by  the  law  made  a  lien  upon  each  piece  thereof  in  the 
proportion  of  its  value  to  the  aggregate  value  of  the  real  estate  in  that  State. 

The  quota  of  each  State  and  Territory  has  been  charged  to  it  upon  the  books  of  the 
Treasury,  and  such  sums  as  have  been  paid  or  collected,  whether  directly  or  by  sale  of 
property,  has  been  credited  against  this  quota,  as  has  also  all  such  sums  as  were  going  to 
said  State  on  account  of  five  per  cents  from  sales  of  public  lands  and  other  allowed 
accounts.  This  system  of  withholding  sums  due  to  States  and  crediting  them  on  account 
of  this  tax  due  by  its  citizens  (or  by  only  a  portion  of  its  citizens  where  some  have  paid) 
is  a  source  of  constant  dissatisfaction  and  friction,  and  at  the  last  session  of  Congress  a 


231 

bill  was  passed  providing  that  a  claim  should  be  paid  directlj'-  to  a  State  in  money  for  the 
purpose  of  avoiding  its  being  thus  credited,  and  a  bill  is  now  pending  in  the  House  to  pay- 
in  money  to  a  State  an  amount  which  has  been  credited  in  the  Treasury  upon  its  quota  of 
this  direct  tax.  The  extreme  undesirability  of  these  issues  over  accounts  between  the 
States  and  the  General  Government  can  not  be  overstated,  and  is  so  apparent  as  not  to 
require  to  be  more  than  mentioned.  The  injustice,  too,  of  the  utter  inequality  of  the  pay- 
ments is  so  apparent  as  to  require  no  argument  as  to  the  importance  of  adopting  some  mode 
of  adjusting  and  equalizing  them,  and  if  this  can  not  be  done  absolutely,  then  at  least  as  far 
as  is  practicable  and  possible. 

To  do  this  is  the  purpose  of  the  bill  under  consideration.  It  provides  that  the  account 
of  each  State  and  Territory  be  credited  with  a  sum  equal  to  all  collections  made  from 
each  State  and  Territory,  or  any  citizen  thereof,  under  the  Act  of  Congress  approved 
August  5.  1861,  and  Acts  amendatory  thereto,  with  an  additional  sum  of  fifteen  per  cent 
on  such  payments  made  without  cost  to  the  United  States,  and  also  to  relinquish  all 
claim  for  all  sums  remaining  unpaid  on  said  direct  tax.  This  will  give  to  those  States 
which  assumed  and  paid  their  quotas  the  benefit  of  the  deductions  to  which  they  thus 
entitled  themselves.  In  those  cases  in  which  the  tax  has  been  collected  from  individuals, 
either  in  money  directly  or  by  sale  of  land,  it  provides,  by  an  amendment  herewith  sub- 
mitted, that  the  amount  thus  paid  back  shall  be  made  to  the  State  in  trust  for  those  of  her 
citizens  who  have  paid  the  same. 

The  bill  was  fully  and  carefully  considered  by  the  late  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Hon. 
Charles  J.  Folger.  On  June  fourteenth,  ultimo,  he  wrote  a  letter,  in  which  he  uses  the 
following  language: 

"The  purpose  of  the  bill  is  to  relieve  and  discharge  from  further  liability  for  that  tax 
those  States  and  Territories  which  have  not  paid  the  portion  thereof  apportioned  to  them 
respectively;  and  to  repay,  oat  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated, 
to  those  States  and  Territories  which  have  paid  any  portion,  the  sums  by  them  respectively 
paid.  Though  by  the  Act  above  cited  this  tax  was  made  an  annual  one,  an  attempt  to 
collect  it  for  more  than  one  year  has  never  been  made.  By  that  attempt  there  were  col- 
lected about  $15,000,000,  principally  from  the  States  which  did  not  seek  to  go  out  of  the 
Union ;  and  there  were  left  uncollected  about  $5,000,000,  principally  in  the  States  which 
did  seek  to  go  out  of  the  Union.  The  sum  uncollected  remains  a  charge  against  these 
States,  and,  for  the  purposes  of  this  letter,  it  may  be  assumed  that  it  is  a  valid  and  enforc- 
able  charge.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  no  legislator  at  this  day  would  propose  to  raise 
revenue  by  a  tax  of  that  kind.  There  is  no  need  of  resorting  to  such  methods.  The 
revenue  of  the  Government  from  sources  not  so  extraordinary,  and  collectible  by  means 
and  appliances  not  so  objectionable  as  those  involved  therein,  are  ample  for  its  purposes. 
They  are,  indeed,  superabundant,  and  the  concern  of  statesmen  is  rather  how  they  may 
be  reduced  than  how  they  may  be  increased.  The  Government  then  needs  not  the  money 
to  be  got  by  enforcing  this  tax. 

"  At  the  same  time,  it  is  plain  that  to  enforce  it  would  put  a  grievous  burden  upon  the 
people  of  the  States  which  are  in  default  in  payment.  It  needs  no  array  of  facts  to  show 
this.  CongrQss  in  one,  if  not  in  both  branches,' has  this  session  considered  the  proposition 
of  large  pecuniary  aid  to  these  people  to  help  them  place  and  keep  up  common,  schools, 
and  the  Senate  has  passed  a  bill  therefor. 

"If  there  be  need  for  that  succor,  there  would  be  harm  in  enforcing  this  charge.  It  is 
to  be  considered,  too,  that  while  taxes  are  seldom  looked  upon  with  favor,  this  would  be 
specially  objectionable.  The  purpose  for  which  it  was  laid  can  but  be  remembered  with 
distaste.  It  can  scarcely  be  expected  that  there  would  be  cheerful  aid  from  the  State 
authorities  in  the  enforcement  of  it.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  there  would  be  any. 
Indeed  it  would,  without  further  legislation,  have  to  be  enforced  by  the  machinery  pro- 
vided by  the  Act  under  which  it  was  laid.  This  would  call  for  the  appointment  of  numer- 
ous Federal  officials,  who  would  go  among  the  people  as  obnoxious  exactors.  I  think  it 
must  be  conceded  that  there  is,  and  ever  will  be,  great  reluctance  to  ever  setting  about  the 
collection  of  this  tax.  That  it  never  had  great  favor,  is  shown  by  that  it  was  never  put  in 
force  but  one  year.  In  practical  effect,  then,  the  law  for  it  is  obsolete.  Why,  then,  should 
there  remain  this  unenforced  liability,  a  menace  to  the  people,  the  enforcement  of  which 
is  called  for  by  no  public  need,  nor  by  any  public  opinion  ? 

"  In  my  judgment,  the  people  and  the  property  of  the  States  in  default  should  be  relieved 
and  discharged  from  it. 

"  But  to  give  such  relief  and  discharge  would  be  to  put  an  equality  of  burden  upon  the 
States  which  paid,  unless  they  in  turn  were  in  some  way  relieved.  This  the  bill  proposes 
to  do  by  repaying  to  them  the  sums  received  from  thiem.  Assuming  that  the  tax  was 
lawful,  and  the  collection,  as  far  as  made,  was  warranted,  this,  apart  from  the  circum- 
stances, would  be  a  proposition  to  donate  to  the  States  surplus  moneys  of  the  United 
-States— a  proposition  which  I  should  not  favor.  But,  as  connected  with  the  proposition 
to  discharge  from  onerous  and  needless  liability  one  portion  of  the  people,  it  takes  on  a 
different  character ;  it  is  presented  as  an  adjustment  between  different  bodies  of  the  people, 
and  is  worthy  of  acceptation.  Indeed,  it  would  be  unjust  to  the  people  of  the  loyal  States 
to  release  the  people  of  the  once  insurrectionary  States  from  their  liability  without  refund- 
ing to  the  former  the  sums  paid  by  them,  and  there  are  analogies  in  the  legislation  of 
Congress.  Acts  have  been  passed  refunding  to  States  moneys  raised  by  them  for  the 
raising,  arming,  and  equipping  of  troops  for  the  Army  of  the  United  States  in  the  civil 
war,  and  for  making  other  refunds  of  like  character.  The  purpose  of  laying  this  direct 
tax  was  to  aid  in  the  ultimate  payment  of  the  extraordinary  expenses  of  the  Government 


232 

caused  by  the  civil  war.  The  raising,  arming,  and  equipping  of  troops  by  the  States  served 
to  keep  (lown  those  expenses  for  the  time.  It  was  a  voluntary  act  upon  the  part  of  the 
States.  There  is  no  violation  of  principle  or  fundamental  law  in  repaying  to  the  States 
from  the  funds  of  the  United  States  the  cost  thereof.  The  purpose  and  effect  of  this  bill  is 
not  so  unlike  in  nature  to  that  as  not  also  to  be  freed  from  the  objections  to  a  bald  distribu- 
tion among  the  States  of  what  are  called  the  surplus  revenues  of  the  United  States. 

"  Under  the  peculiar  facts  of  the  case,  and  as  it  is  not  likely  to  become  a  precedent  for 
other  disposals  of  Federal  moneys,  my  judgment  is,  that  the  proposed  measure  is  a  good 
one.  It  IS  true  that  exactly  equal  justice  can  not  be  done  in  carrying  out  the  proposition 
of  the  bill.  Thus,  in  some  of  the  Southern  States  the  tax  was  to  some  extent  enforced. 
Tax  sales  were  made  of  pieces  of  real  estate  in  instances  for  less  than  the  value  of  them. 
Only  the  surplus  of  purchase  money  over  the  tax  and  charges  has  been  available  to  the 
owners,  and  they  have  lost  the  difference  between  that  and  the  total  of  the  purchase 
money,  and  between  the  purchase  money  and  the  real  value. 

"  On  the  other  hand,  in  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  Northern  States,  the  payment  to  the 
United  States  of  the  tax  was  assumed  by  the  State  government,  which  collected  the  amount 
of  its  own  people  in  its  own  tax  levy.  "Of  course,  in  the  changes  of  citizenship  and  owner- 
ship of  taxable  property,  while  a  repayment  into  the  State  Treasury  will  tend  to  reduce 
the  amount  of  State  tax,  it  will  not  iniire  to  the  benefit  of  some  of  those  who  in  1861  were 
taxpayers.  But  these  failures  of  full  and  general  compensation  in  dealing  with  transac- 
tions so  long  past  must  ensue,  and  are  not  to  be  potentially  urged  against  proposed  meas- 
ures, which  in  the  main  do  work  equal  benefit." 

The  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  Hon.  William  Lawrence,  also  recommends  the  passage 
of  this  bill  in  the  following  terms : 

"  The  object  of  these  bills  is  to  remit,  so  far  as  not  collected  or  paid,  the  direct  taxes  laid 
upon  and  apportioned  to  the  States,  Territories,  and  District  of  Columbia  under  the  direct 
tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  to  refund  to  such  States,  Territories,  and  District  respect- 
ively the  amount  of  such  taxes  so  fscr  as  paid  in  any  mode  whatever. 

"1  have  considered  the  subject  with  care,  and  now  have  the  honor  to  state  that,  in  my 
judgment,  it  is  alike  just,  judicious,  and  practicable  to  remit  all  such  taxes  not  yet  collected^ 
to  refund  the  amounts  paid  in  any  form  by  any  State  or  Territory,  and  to  refund  to  private 
persons  or  their  legal  representatives  all  amounts  of  such  tax  by  them  paid  or  collected 
by  sale  of  real  estate  or  otherwise." 

"^In  view  of  the  status  of  this  tax  as  exhibited  by  these  facts,  your  committee  fully  con- 
cur in  the  recommendations  herein  set  out.  In  those  cases  in  which  the  money,  where- 
with any  State  stands  credited,  was  collected  from  its  citizens,  the  amount  to  be  returned 
to  said  State  under  this  bill  should  be  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  those  citizens  from  whom 
it  was  collected,  or  their  legal  representatives,  and  your  committee  recommends  that  the 
bill  be  amended  by  adding  the  following  at  the  end  thereof:  "Provided,  that  where  the 
sums,  or  any  part  thereof,  credited  to  any  State  or  Territory,  has  been  collected  from  the 
citizens  thereof,  either  directly  or  by  sale  of  property,  such  amount  shall  be  regarded  as 
received  by  said  States  in  trust  for  the  benefit  of  those  of  its  citizens  from  whom  it  was 
collected,  or  their  legal  representatives." 

Your  committee  recommends  that  the  bill  thus  amended  do  pass. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  present  session  I  again  introduced  the  same 
bill  as  amended  by  the  Committee  on  Claims,  which  is  now  pending  and 
before  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  and  I  submit  that  this  bill  ought 
not  to  pass,  but  that  the  one  referred  to,  under  the  provisions  of  which  the 
States  in  default  should  be  released  and  the  States  which  have  paid  should 
be  reimbursed,  should  pass. 

But  it  is  argued  that  this  bill,  H.  R.  No.  3,  should  pass  because  the  law 
under  which  the  tax  was  levied  was  unconstitutional.  For  the  purpose  of 
the  argument  let  us  admit  that  it  was  unconstitutional,  and  it  would  follow 
that  no  further  collections  should  be  made  under  or  by  virtue  of  it,  and  bill 
No.  3,  H.  R.,  should  become  a  law,  but  only  side  by  side  with  another  pro- 
vision of  law  under  which  all  sums  heretofore  collected  under  that  uncon- 
stitutional law  should  be  refunded  to  those  from  whom  it  was  collected. 

Pass  this  bill  to  relieve  the  defaulting  States,  on  the  ground  of  an  uncon- 
stitutional levy,  and  then  we  would  be  told  just  as  gravely  that  it  would  be 
unconstitutional  to  refund  the  amounts  paid. 

I  wish  the  time  might  come  in  my  day  when  the  Constitution  would  not 
be  invoked  to  justify  a  wrong,  or  whenever  men  desired  to  avoid  doing 
right.  It  has  been  warped  and  twisted  and  misconstrued  and  misinter- 
preted in  support  of  every  job  and  scheme  and  unworthy  purpose,  when  the 
purpose  of  its  framers  was  to  secure  equal  and  exact  justice  to  every  citi- 
zen and  every  section  of  the  Republic. 


233 

But,  unfortunately  for  those  who  invoke  its  aid  in  this  case  to  avoid  the 
payment  of  a  just  obligation,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
(volume  98,  pages  527  and  528)  have  declared  that  the  laws  under  which 
the  levy  was  made  was  constitutional,  in  the  following  language: 

One  other  assignment  only  remains :  It  is  that  the  Acts  of  Congress  were  unconstitu- 
tional, because  the  amount  of  the  direct  taxes  apportioned  to  the  State  of  South  Carolina 
was  increased  by  the  addition  thereto  of  a  penalty  of  fifty  per  cent,  and,  therefore,  was 
not  in  proportion  to  the  census  or  enumeration  directed  to  be  taken  by  the  second  section 
of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution. 

The  assignment  rests  upon  a  mistaken  construction  of  the  Acts  of  Congress. 

It  is  true  that  direct  taxes  must  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States  according  to 
the  population. 

The  Acts  of  August  5, 1861,  June  7,  1862,  and  February  6, 1863,  did  so  apportion  the  tax. 

The  fifty  per  cent  penalty  was  no  part  of  it. 

The  Act  of  Congress  of  1861,  which  levied  the  tax,  provided  for  no  penalty,  except  for 
failure  to  pay  it  when  it  was  due;  and  the  penalty  charged  by  the  Act  of  1862  and  1863 
was  also  for  default  of  voluntary  payment  in  due  time. 

A  careful  reading  of  the  Acts  makes  this  very  plain. 

Throughout  a  distinction  is  made  between  the  tax  and  the  added  penalty. 

It  is  recognized  in  the  first  section  of  the  Act  of  1862 ;  in  the  second,  and  in  the  third, 
as  well  as  elsewhere. 

By  the  third  section  the  owner  of  lots  or  parcels  of  land  was  allowed  to  pay  the  tax 
charged  thereon  (not  the  tax  and  penalty)  and  take  a  certificate  of  payment,  by  virtue 
whereof  the  lands  would  be  discharged.  It  can  not,  therefore,  be  maintained  that  the  tax 
was  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution. 

So  far  as  this  bill  is  concerned  it  should  be  defeated  by  a  vote  so  clear 
and  emphatic  as  to  discourage  future  attempts  to  secure  legislation  so 
repugnant  to  justice  and  fair  dealing. 

If  the  Supreme  Court  are  correct  in  their  interpretation,  then  the  tax 
was  legal  and  therefore  the  States  in  default  are  legally  indebted,  and  this 
bill  releases  them,  practically,  from  that  indebtedness. 

If  the  assessment  was  illegal,  it  was  at  least  necessary  for  the  good  of  all 
the  States,  and  was  cheerfully  paid  by  some  of  the  parties  in  interest;  from 
others  collections  were  enforced,  and  all  had  the  benefits,  and  no  part  of 
the  Union  was  more  directly  or  materially  benefited  than  these  States  now 
in  arrears. 

The  whole  tax  should  be  treated  as  a  loan,  and  as  it  was  paid,  so  far  as 
paid  at  all,  by  the  people,  and  added  that  amount  to  their  taxes,  it  should, 
now  that  the  conflict  is  past  and  the  white  dove  of  peace  is  hovering  over  a 
reunited,  happy,  and  prosperous  country,  be  restored  to  the  Treasuries  of 
the  several  States  that  contributed  it,  to  lessen  the  amount  of  taxes  in  the 
future. 

The  State  of  Ohio  on  January  14,  1885,  memorialized  this  Congress  to 
pass  a  bill  to  remit  the  balance  due  from  States  in  arrears,  and  to  reim- 
burse the  States  for  amounts  paid  by  them. 

Mr.  Culberson.  I  will  yield  to  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Taylor]  as 
much  of  my  time  as  he  wishes  to  occupy. 

Mr.  Ezra  B.  Taylor.  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  time  allotted  to  me  in  this 
discussion  I  can  do  no  more  than  state  the  position  I  occupy  upon  the  bill 
before  the  House. 

By  enactment  of  Congress,  approved  in  March,  I  believe,  1883,  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  was  authorized  to  pay  to  the 
State  of  Georgia  $35,500.  When  the  State  of  Georgia  applied  for  that 
money  the  United  States  Treasury  officials  refused  to  pay  it,  but  proposed 
to  apply  it  to  a  claim  said  to  be  due  from  the  State  of  Georgia  to  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States.  This  bill  is  one  intended  to  prevent  that 
adjustment,  and  any  other  like  it,  if  any  other  exists. 

There  may  be  two  questions  in  this  case,  one  of  law  and  the  other  of 
policy.     I  desire  first  to  state  the  question  of  law  involved.     It  is  a  cold, 


234 

clear  question  of  law.  There  is  no  place  for  any  political  or  other  antag- 
onism or  sympathy. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  owes  Georgia  $35,500.  It  is 
claimed  that  Georgia  owes  the  Government  of  the  United  States  a  greater 
sum.  Is  this  a  fact?  If  it  is  not  a  fact,  then  no  one  can  deny  this  measure 
ought  to  pass,  so  far  as  Georgia  is  concerned.  I  say  unhesitatingly — I  say 
from  examination — I  say  from  what  I  believe  to  be  my  knowledge  of  the 
law  as  connected  with  this  case,  that  Georgia  owes  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  nothing  by  virtue  of  the  legislation  referred  to  as  the  legisla- 
tion of  1861.  Nor  do  other  States,  as  States,  that  come  within  the  category 
of  this  bill.  If  there  is  no  debt  then  from  Georgia  due  by  it  to  the  United 
States,  there  should  be  ho  set-off.     I  propose  only  to  state  that  proposition. 

Now,  there  is  nothing  claimed  of  such  State  but  that  which  arises  under 
the  law  of  1861,  by  which  it  was  attempted  to  raise  an  annual  direct  tax  of 
$20,000,000  per  year.  That  law  provided  not  for  assessments  for  one  year, 
but  it  was  a  continuous  law  providing  a  direct  tax  of  $20,000,000,  appor- 
tioned among  the  States  in  proportion  to  population,  without  limit  as  to 
time.  But  this  part  of  the  law  was  repealed  at  a  subsequent  session  of 
Congress.  I  will  not  inquire  whether  Congress,  under  the  Constitution,  had 
power  to  make  a  State  its  debtor;  I  will  only  answer  Congress  did  not 
attempt  to  make  a  State  its  debtor  in  this  Act  of  1861.  It  was  a  law  pro- 
viding for  a  direct  tax  among  the  States.  It  is  a  very  long  law,  comprising 
more  than  sixty  sections.  As  was  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Iowa  [Mr. 
Hepburn]  the  other  day,  the  law  provided  the  whole  machinery  for  the 
collection  of  that  money,  and  did  not  provide  State  machinery.  It  pro- 
vided United  States  machinery.  It  was  solely  a  law  to  be  operated  by 
agents  of  the  United  States.  It  was  a  direct  tax  upon  the  people  of  the 
United  States  apportioned  among  the  States  according  to  the  ratio  of  popu- 
lation. The  assessor,  the  collector,  the  provision  of  liens,  the  sale  of  real 
estate  and  personal  property,  all  were  to  be  done  through  the  agency  of  the 
United  States,  and  not  through  the  agency  of  any  State. 

It  was  not  called  a  debt  of  the  State ;  it  did  not  progress  as  though  it 
was  a  debt  of  the  State,  but  simply  this  power  of  direct  taxation  was 
applied  in  this  way,  or  sought  to  be  applied. 

Now,  it  may  be — I  have  heard  it  argued  here — that  the  course  which 
Congress  took  was  outside  of  its  power  under  the  Constitution.  Admitting 
that,  if  you  please,  the  admission  amounts  to  this  only,  that  then  there  is 
no  indebtedness  of  any  kind  even  from  the  people  of  Georgia.  One  other 
fact,  Mr.  Speaker.  A  provision  was  included  in  this  law  by  which  an 
inducement  was  held  out  to  the  different  States  to  make  it  a  State  debt  or 
State  obligation,  and  not  an  individual  burden.  It  was  provided  in  this 
law  itself  that  such  States  as  would  assume  the  amount  of  the  indebted- 
ness and  make  it  a  State  obligation  within  a  limited  time  should  have  a 
credit  of  fifteen  per  cent  upon  the  whole  amount  of  the  tax  assessed  against 
the  State.  It  was  also  provided  that  those  States  who  would  assume  it  as 
the  debt  of  the  State  within  a  certain  other  limited  time  should  receive  a 
credit  of  ten  per  cent  on  the  total  amount.  Neither  the  States  nor  the 
Congress  understood  it  then  to  be  a  State  indebtedness.  But,  says  the 
gentleman  from  Iowa,  tell  me  under  what  authority  of  the  Constitution 
could  this  be  assumed  if  it  was  not  a  debt?  Perhaps  none.  But  it  still 
goes  to  this  point,  that  the  Congress  did  not  understand  it  to  be  a  State 
debt,  did  not  regard  it  as  an  obligation  of  the  State,  nor  was  it  so  under- 
stood by  the  States  themselves. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  stated  simply  this  plain  legal  proposition,  and 
have  stated  the  facts  in  regard  to  that  enactment.     It  did  not  seek,  it  did 


235 

not  intend,  nor  did  it  impose  a  State  obligation;  and  while  it  has  been  sug- 
gested that  it  is  difficult  to  see  the  difference  between  the  obligation  of 
the  people  of  the  State  and  the  obligation  of  the  State  itself,  there  is  no 
such  difficulty,  in  my  mind,  any  more  than  there  is  a  difference  between 
a  corporation  and  the  stockholders  of  that  corporation.  The  interest  of 
these  parties  are  not  identical — the  interests  of  the  individual  and  of  the 
State — unless  it  should  be  that  the  precise  manner  of  taxation,  the  precise 
thing  taxed,  should  be  in  the  same  ratio,  on  the  same  basis,  under  the  law 
of  1861  and  under  the  State  law,  which  was  not  true.  So  I  say  that,  as 
a  matter  of  law,  there  cannot  be,  and  never  ought  to  have  been,  in  any 
case,  any  legal  offset;  and  I  say  that  believing  I  speak  the  exact  truth  in 
regard  to  what  the  law  is. 

I  do  not  deny  that  the  imposition  of  the  tax  was  legal  under  the  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  or  without  it  under  the  authority  of  the  Constitution. 

Now  a  second  proposition,  and  that  is,  that  this  tax  ought  not,  in  my 
judgment,  to  be  collected  in  this  way  anyhow.  It  can  not  be  collected  in 
this  way  if  this  legal  proposition  be  correct.  An  attempt  to  collect  it  might 
succeed  in  confiscating  the  debt  we  owe  to  the  State  of  Georgia;  but  it 
never  would  be  in  the  mind  of  a  lawyer  a  collection  of  a  debt,  but  the  con- 
fiscation of  credits,  and  that  is  all  there  is  of  it.  There  has  never  been 
anything  else  in  it  so  far  as  it  has  been  enforced  heretofore;  and  it  makes 
no  difference  what  political  feeling  might  induce  me  to  do.  I  am  not  so 
made  that,  standing  here  as  a  legislator,  I  can  trample  by  my  vote  under 
foot  the  law  and  the  Constitution  of  my  country. 

But  this  law  was  found  in  less  than  a  year  to  have  been  a  mistake. 
Many  of  the  States,  for  the  purpose  of  getting  the  advantage  of  the  induce- 
ment held  out  to  them  of  a  deduction  as  provided  in  the  law,  assumed  the 
indebtedness  as  a  State  obligation,  and  paid  the  tax  with  those  deductions. 
The  law  was  repealed  so  far  as  subsequent  action  was  concerned;  and  no 
administration  up  to  this  day  has  attempted  to  collect  any  of  these  debts 
since.  Nay,  more,  sir;  the  machinery  provided  by  that  law  for  its  enforce- 
ment was  never  appointed.  No  one  existing  in  this  House  or  in  this  coun- 
try expects  to  collect  the  balance  of  the  millions  that  are  now  due  under 
that  enactment.  There  should  be  no  trap  set  by  which,  when  States 
become  creditors  of  the  General  Government,  that  credit  may  be  wiped  out 
by  springing  the  trap  set  by  it,  while  at  the  same  time  there  is  no  intention 
to  enforce  the  law  honestly  and  squarely  by  the  collection  of  this  debt.  It 
may,  sir,  be  collected  to-day.  Every  dollar  the  State  of  Georgia  owes  may 
be  collected.  Our  President  may  appoint  his  assessors  and  collectors,  and 
he  may  force  by  distress  and  by  sale  of  real  estate  in  Georgia,  the  collec- 
tion of  the  amount  of  this  tax.  Does  anybody  ask  it?  Have  the  Repub- 
lican administration  gone  forward  in  that  direction  ?  I  say  no.  The  fact 
is,  that  as  we  do  not  intend  to  collect  it,  nobody  desires  the  collection. 
What  then?  There  is  but  one  way  in  justice  out  of  this  matter.  Not  one 
dollar  of  it  should  be  collected  forcibly  from  the  State  of  Georgia,  from 
Ohio,  or  Colorado,  or  any  other  State.  But  I  do  claim,  sir,  that  this  tax 
should  be  wholly  repaid  or  wholly  collected;  and,  as  it  cannot  and  will  not 
be  collected,  I  am  intending,  if  possible,  to  say  to-day  that  the  tax  already 
paid  by  the  States  shall  be  repaid  to  them,  as  it  honestly  should  be. 

Mr.  Cannon.    Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  interrupt  him  right  there? 

Mr.  Ezra  B.  Taylor.    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Cannon.  If  that  be  the  gentleman's  position,  why  not  vote  for  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Iowa  [Mr.  Hepburn],  which  does  exactly 
that  thing  ? 

Mr.  Ezra  B.  Taylor.     I  have  not  said  whether  I  will  vote  for  that  amend- 


236 

ment.  I  do  not  know  what  it  is.  But  I  say,  behind  that,  what  is  sufficient 
for  nie  to  control  my  vote  in  this  case,  there  is  no  place  for  offset;  there  is 
no  offset  to  have  this  applied  to.  There  is  no  legal  obligation  on  the  part 
of  Georgia  to  pay  the  Government  of  the  United  States  one  single  dollar 
growing  out  of  the  legislation  of  1861.  Any  man  that  will  go  into  that 
library  and  take  up  the  Statutes  at  Large  of  1861,  I  do  not  care  whether 
he  is  a  lawyer  or  not,  I  will  venture  my  reputation  as  a  man  on  the  asser- 
tion that  he  will  say  when  he  is  through  that  there  never  was  an  intention 
of  making  that  a  debt  against  the  State  of  Georgia,  nor  was  there  ever 
such  an  effect  marked  out  by  that  statute.  And  so,  standing  right  there, 
I  am  fully  able  to  say  I  will  support  this  bill;  and  when  another  comes  for 
that  other  purpose,  just  and  fair  and  honest  as  it  is,  then  I  will  give  it  my 
most  enthusiastic  support. 

Mr.  Cutcheon.     Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  to  ask  him  a  question? 

Mr.  Ezra  B.  Taylor.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Cutcheon.    When  that  direct  tax  of  1861  was  laid  upon  the  States 

Mr.  Ezra  B.  Taylor.     It  never  was. 

Mr.  Cutcheon.     Well,  it  was  apportioned  to  the  States,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Ezra  B.  Taylor.     It  was  apportioned  among  the  people  of  the  States. 

Mr.  Cutcheon.  Was  the  entire  tax  apportioned  against  the  States  which 
were  then  in  their  normal  relations  to  the  Federal  Government? 

Mr.  Ezra  B.  Taylor.  It  was  apportioned  among  the  people  of  the  States 
and  Territories  regardless  of  any  internal  commotion. 

Mr.  Cutcheon.  And  then  the  proper  proportion  of  it  was  made  an  obliga- 
tion against  the  State  or  people  of  Georgia  ? 

Mr.  Ezra  B.  Taylor.  Against  the  people  of  Georgia  in  their  individual 
capacity;  a  provision  was  made  for  liens  on  their  lands,  not  liens  on  the 
property  of  Georgia. 

Mr.  Cutcheon.  In  other  words,  was  it  not  a  tax  on  the  people  of  Georgia 
as  much  as  on  the  people  of  Ohio  ? 

Mr.  Ezra  B.  Taylor.  Yes.  But  what  does  all  this  mean?  What  is  be- 
hind it? 

Mr.  Cutcheon.  Have  not  those  States,  which  were  in  normal  relations 
to  the  Federal  Government,  paid  their  proportions? 

Mr.  Ezra  B.  Taylor.  That  is  not  true  as  to  all  of  them.  Colorado  has 
not  paid.  But,  if  so,  it  simply  comes  to  the  other  point  that  you  ought  to 
pay  it  back  as  you  do  not  collect  the  balance.  But  it  does  not  go  to  this 
point  that  you  shall  make  a  legal  obligation  where  you  know  one  never 
existed,  because  it  may  be  your  people  at  home  are  making  a  clamor  about  it. 

Mr.  Price.     Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  to  make  an  inquiry? 

Mr.  Ezra  B.  Taylor.     I  am  occupying  another  gentleman's  time. 

Mr.  Price.     I  desire  to  say 

Mr.  Ezra  B.  Taylor.  I  decline  to  yield.  A  "  desire  to  say  "  is  different 
from  a  "desire  to  agk." 

Mr.  Culberson.     How  much  time  have  I  remaining? 

The  Speaker  pro  tempore  [Mr.  Mills.]  The  gentleman  from  Texas  has 
forty  minutes  of  his  time  remaining. 

[Mr.  Culberson  addressed  the  House.  His  remarks  will  appear  here- 
after.] 

Mr.  Warner  of  Ohio.  Mr.  Speaker,  this  issue  hinges  upon  one  single 
question,  and  that  is,  whether  the  tax  levied  under  the  Act  of  1861,  was 
chargeable  to  the  State  or  not.  If  that  tax,  as  levied  under  the  Act  of  1861, 
was  chargeable  to  a  State,  then,  of  course,  any  debt  owed  by  the  United 
States  to  a  State  might  be  set  off  against  the  charge,  under  that  law,  against 


237 

a  State.  But  if  it  were  Dot  chargeable  against  a  State,  then,  of  course,  it 
can  not  be  set  off. 

Was  it  chargeable  against  a  State?  That  question  has  been  so  well 
stated  and  argued  by  my  colleague  [Mr.  Taylor]  this  morning  that  it  is  not 
necessary  for  me  to  go  over  the  ground  again. 

That  the  direct  tax  of  1861,  levied  under  the  apportionment  clause  of  the 
Constitution,  was  a  tax  levied  upon  real  estate,  upon  lands  and  buildings, 
is  perfectly  clear  from  the  Act  itself,  and  from  the  discussions  which  took 
place  in  reference  to  it  in  both  Houses  on  the  passage  of  the  Act.  It  was 
said  at  the  time,  by  Mr.  Stevens  and  by  Mr.  Bingham  and  others,  that  it 
was  a  tax  on  land,  and  that  a  direct  tax  could  only  be  levied  upon  land. 

In  the  very  nature  of  things  it  could  not  be  levied  upon  the  State  itself, 
for  the  State  has  little  or  no  property  upon  which  to  levy  a  tax.  It  is  true 
you  may  levy  it  upon  the  Statehouse  and  other  State  property,  but  what 
would  it  amount  to?  In  fact,  the  law  of  1861,  as  did  all  other  laws  impos- 
ing direct  taxes,  provided  that  all  State  property  should  be  exempt  from 
taxation. 

The  Government  provided  the  machinery  to  collect  the  tax  directly  from 
the  individual,  and  I  maintain  if  the  United  States  Government  were  now 
to  proceed  to  collect  that  tax  it  would  proceed  to  collect  it  from  the  owners 
of  the  land,  those  who  now  hold  the  land,  which  was  a  subject  of  taxation 
when  the  tax  was  levied.  The  whole  question,  I  say  again,  hinges  on  that 
one  fact,  whether  it  was  a  charge  or  could  be  a  charge  against  the  State, 
under  the  Constitution,  or  against  the  individual. 

I  do  not  care,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  argue  the  question  further,  as  it  would  be 
only  traveling  over  the  same  ground  which  has  been  so  thoroughly  gone 
over  by  other  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me  in  this  discussion. 

[Mr.  Ranney  addressed  the  House.     His  remarks  will  appear  hereafter.] 

Mr.  Hammond.  Mr.  Speaker,  the  time  when,  according  to  an  under- 
standing with  the  gentlemen  from  Illinois  [Mr.  Morrison],  the  considera- 
tion of  this  subject  was  to  be  suspended  for  to-day,  has  now  arrived.  But 
if  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Ranney]  wants  only  a  few  min- 
utes to  conclude,  perhaps  an  agreement  may  be  made  with  the  gentleman 
from  Illinois  to  that  effect. 

The  Speaker.  The  time  assigned  for  the  consideration  of  this  subject  to- 
day by  order  of  the  House  has  now  expired. 

Mr.  Ranney.     How  much  of  my  time  remains  ? 

The  Speaker.  One  half  hour.  The  gentlemen  will  be  entitled  to  occupy 
the  floor  for  that  time  when  the  subject  is  resumed. 

Mr.  Ranney.  It  is  not  very  material  to  me  whether  I  go  on  now  or  at 
another  time,  although  I  would  prefer  to  finish  to-day. 

Mr.  Hammond.  The  gentleman  from  Illinois  consents  that  if  the  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts  wants  only  a  few  minutes  more,  he  may  go  on  and 
finish  now. 

Mr.  Ranney.  I  do  not  wish  to  give  up  any  part  of  my  time;  but  I  may 
finish  in  half  the  time  I  am  entitled  to. 

The  Speaker.  The  gentlemen  will  be  entitled  to  the  floor  when  the  sub- 
ject is  resumed. 


238 
EXHIBIT  No.  39>^. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R,  3. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     February  8,  1886. 
Mr.  Little  proposed  an  amendment  to  bill 

TO  PREVENT  THE  CLAIM  OF  THE  WAR  TAXES 

Under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  Acts  amendatory  thereof,  by  the 
United  States,  as  set-off  against  States  having  claims  against  the  Gen- 
eral Government,  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Proposed  amendment  to  H.  R.  3.  Add  to  section  one  the  following: 
'^Provided,  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  hereby  authorized  and 
directed  to  enter  a  credit,  as  of  money  advanced  to  the  United  States  for 
account,  to  any  State  or  Territory  or  the  District  of  Columbia  for  any  sum 
or  sums  received  therefrom,  or  from  lands  or  land  owners  thereof  on  any 
account  whatsoever,  under  said  Act  of  August  5, 1861,  or  any  Act  amenda- 
tory thereof,  and  to  pay  to  the  same  any  balance  found  due  on  account, 
after  entering  such  credit,  out  of  the  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise 
appropriated;  one  half  of  such  balance  to  be  paid  within  one  year,  and 
the  other  half  within  two  years  after  the  passage  of  this  Act;  provided, 
the  President  may  defer  either  or  both  such  payments  for  a  definite  period, 
and  continue  so  to  do  if,  and  as  long  as,  in  his  own  judgment  the  public 
interests  so  require,  not,  however,  beyond  five  years;  and  the  payment  first 
referred  to  in  this  section  shall  be  made  at  the  time  of  paying  the  first 
installment  of  said  balance  as  aforesaid.  The  provisions  of  said  Act  of 
August  fifth,  and  any  Act  amendatory  thereof,  in  so  far  as  they  relate  to  the 
levy,  apportionment,  and  collection  of  said  war  tax,  are  hereby  repealed, 
and  all  liabilities  and  obligations  to  the  United  States  created  thereby  or 
assumed  on  account  thereof  are  hereby  remitted  and  canceled." 


EXHIBIT  No.  40. 

21  April,  1886. 
Hon.  J.  R.  Eden,  House  of  Representatives : 

Dear  Sir  :  Referring  to  the  interview  last  night  by  Mr.  Earle  and  myself, 
we  forgot  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  on  Wednesday,  March  17, 
1886,  the  House  had  under  consideration  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Florida 
as  reported  from  the  committee  by  Mr.  Dougherty,  to  wit:  House  Report 
No.  303,  to  accompany  House  Bill  3877.  The  inquiry  was  made  by  Mr. 
Burrows  of  Michigan,  whether  in  the  calculations  allowing  said  claim  any 
deduction  was  made  on  account  of  Florida's  direct  tax;  whereupon  Mr. 
Davidson  replied  "that  an  amendment  would  be  offered  to  meet  that;" 
and  thereupon  followed  various  suggestions  by  Mr.  Long,  Mr.  Buchanan, 
Mr.  Price,  Mr.  Warner,  and  others,  and  all  of  which  finally  resulted  in  an 
amendment  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  as  follows, 
to  wit: 

^'Provided,  that  the  balance  remaining  due  of  the  direct  tax  apportioned 
to  the  State  of  Florida  by  the  direct  tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  be  held 
and  treated  as  a  proper  set-off  against  the  claims  of  the  State  of  Florida 
in  the  adjustment  herein  required,  unless  Congress  shall  otherwise  provide 


239 

by  general  law,  releasing  all  claims  for  said  direct  tax,  or  refunding  all  'pay- 
ments of  such  tax  heretofore  madeJ^ 

This  amendment  was  agreed  to,  and  as  the  same  appears  of  record  on 
page  2455  of  the  Congressional  Record  of  March  18,  1886,  which  I  inclose 
you  herewith.  From  this  affirmative  action  by  Congress  you  will  readily 
see  that  the  House  has  had  before  it  the  subject-matter  of  the  direct  tax 
and  making  off-sets,  etc.,  and  by  its  action  it  has  practically  voted  down 
the  provisions  contained  in  Mr.  Hammond's  hill,  and  acted  in  anticipation 
of  some  remedial  measure  touching  the  subject  of  direct  tax;  and  all  of 
which  I  recommend  to  your  careful  consideration. 

Yours,  truly, 

JOHN  MULLAN. 

N.  B. — You  will  perceive  that  the  action  of  the  House  on  the  Florida 
case  was  in  harmony  with  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee  on  Claims 
when  reporting  (through  Mr.  Trigg)  upon  H.  R.  2498.  February  28,  1886, 
in  House  Report  No.  519,  page  4;  copy  herewith. 

Respectfully, 

JOHN  MULLAN. 


EXHIBIT  No.  41. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  2457. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  May  24,  1886 — Ordered  to  be 
printed. 

AMENDMENT 

Intended  to  he  proposed  hy  Mr.  Hampton  to  the  hill  (S.  2457)  for  the  relief  of 
the  State  of  Georgia,  viz.:  Strike  out  all  after  the  enacting  clause  and  insert 
the  following: 

That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  credit  to 
each  State  and  Territory  of  the  United  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia 
a  sum  equal  to  all  collections  made  from  said  States  and  Territories  and 
the  District  of  Columbia,  under  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  fifth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  and  the  amendatory  Acts  thereto,  with 
such  additional  credits  as  under  said  Act  they  are  entitled  to  have  in  con- 
sequence of  having  paid  any  portion  thereof  without  expense  of  collection 
to  the  United  States;  and  such  sums  also  as  have  been  collected  from  lands 
or  owners  thereof  under  supplemental  Acts  on  any  account  whatever. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  moneys  still  due  to  the  United  States  on  the  quota  of 
direct  tax  apportioned  by  section  eight  of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved 
August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  are  hereby  repealed  and 
annulled. 

Sec.  3.  That  there  is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the 
Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  such  sums  as  may  be  necessary  to 
reimburse  each  State,  Territory,  and  the  District  of  Columbia  for  all  money 
found  due  to  them  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  and  the  Treasurer  of 
the  United  States  is  hereby  directed  to  pay  the  same ;  provided,  that  when 
the  sums,  or  any  part  thereof,  credited  to  any  State,  Territory,  or  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  have  been  collected  from  any  citizen  thereof,  either 
directly  or  by  sale,  resale,  or  lease  of  property,  such  sums  shall  be  held  in 
trust  by  such  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  for  the  benefit  of 


240 

those  of  its  citizens  from  whom  it  was  collected,  or  their  legal  representa- 
tives. 

Amend  the  title  so  as  to  read:  "A  bill  to  credit  and  pay  the  several 
States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia  all  moneys  collected 
under  the  direct  tax  levied  by  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  fifth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one." 


EXHIBIT  No.  42. 

EXTRACTS  FROM    THE    PUBLIC    LAWS   OF    THE    STATE   OF 

GEORGIA. 

An  Act  to  authorize  his  Excellency  the  Governor  of  this  State  [Georgia] 
to  issue  and  negotiate  the  bonds  of  this  State  [Georgia]  whereby  to  raise 
money  to  meet  appropriations  made  and  to  be  made  by  the  General 
Assembly  *  *  *  and  to  relieve  the  people  of  this  State  [Georgia]  from 
the  U.  S.  Land  [or  Direct]  Tax,  etc.  (Public  laws  of  Georgia,  1865-6,  page 
19     *     *     *). 

Section  7.  That  his  Excellency  the  Governor  is  hereby  authorized  to 
issue  and  negotiate  bonds,  to  the  amount  of  six  hundred  thousand  dollars, 
at  such  time  and  rate  of  interest,  not  exceeding  seven  per  cent,  as  he  may 
find  necessary  and  proper,  for  the  purpose  of  paying  to  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  the  Land  [or  Direct]  Tax  about  to  be  levied  on  the  people 
of  the  State  [Georgia,]  in  behalf  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
said  tax  amounting  to  five  hundred  and  eighty-four  thousand  three  hundred 
and  sixty-seven  dollars  and  thirty-three  cents,  and  interest  which  may  be  due 
thereon. 

EXHIBIT  No.  43. 

EXTRACTS    FROM   THE    PUBLIC    LAWS    OF   THE    STATE    OF 

TEXAS. 

Approved  November  13,  1866  (chapter  23,  page  257). 

An  Act  to  assess  and  collect  the  Direct  Tax  due  United  States  Govern- 
ment for  the  year  1861,  under  the  provisions  of  "An  Act  for  the  collection 
of  direct  taxes  in  insurrectionary  districts  within  the  United  States,  and 
for  other  purposes,"  approved  June  7,  1862,  and  to  make  provisions  for  the 
payment  thereof  to  the  United  States  Government. 

Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Texas,  that 
the  Governor  is  hereby  authorized  to  have  assessed  and  collected  upon  all 
the  real  property  within  this  State,  except  such  as  may  have  already  been 
assessed  and  the  tax  thereon  collected  by  the  officers  of  the  United  States 
Government,  a  tax  of  twenty-eight  cents  on  each  one  hundred  dollars  of 
value  of  such  property  for  the  year  1861,  to  enable  this  State  to  pay  its  pro- 
portion of  said  tax,  and  for  which  purpose  he  is  hereby  authorized  to  take 
such  steps  as  may  be  necessary  to  accomplish  that  purpose  within  the  time 
specified  in  said  Act. 

Sec.  2.  That  in  the  event  said  tax  shall  be  insufficient  to  meet  the 
demands  of  the  United  States  Government  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1868, 
upon  this  State,  the  Governor  is  hereby  authorized,  if  practicable,  to  make 
up  any  deficiency  which  may  be  found  to  exist  on  that  date,  from  any 


241 

moneys  belonging  to  the  State  revenue  account  not  otherwise  appropri- 
ated, and  shall  continue  such  assessment  and  collection  until  the  sanae  is 
completed. 

EXHIBIT  No.  44. 

STATE  OF  GEORGIA— DIRECT  TAX  ACT. 

Mr.  Hampton.  Yesterday  I  asked  that  Order  of  Business  No.  1310, 
being  the  bill  (S.  2457)  for  the  relief  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  should  be 
passed  over  informally,  as  I  had  some  facts  that  I  meant  to  submit.  I  ask 
to  call  it  up  now,  and  crave  the  indulgence  of  the  Senate  to  let  me  offer  an 
amendment,  and  state  some  facts  that  I  wish  to  present,  and  then  the  bill 
may  go  over  for  future  consideration. 

The  President  'pro  tempore.  The  Senator  from  South  Carolina  asks  the 
Senate  to  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  bill  referred  to  with  a  view  to 
submitting  some  remarks,  and  then  have  it  go  over.  Is  there  objection? 
The  Chair  hears  none. 

The  Senate,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  proceeded  to  consider  the 
bill  (S.  2457),  for  the  relief  of  the  State  of  Georgia. 

Mr.  Hampton.  I  offer  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  which  I  ask  to  have 
read. 

The  Chief  Clerk.  It  is  proposed  to  strike  out  all  after  the  enacting  clause 
and  to  insert  the  following: 

That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  credit  to  each  State  and 
Territory  of  the  United  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia  a  sum  equal  to  all  collections 
made  from  said  States  and  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  under  the  Act  of 
Congress  approved  August  5, 1861,  and  the  amendatory  Acts  thereto,  with  such  additional 
credits  as  under  said  Act  they  are  entitled  to  have  in  consequence  of  having  paid  any 
portion  thereof  without  expense  of  collection  to  the  United  States;  and  such  sums  also 
as  have  been  collected  from  lands  or  owners  thereof  under  supplemental  Acts  on  any 
account  whatever. 

S£C.  2.  That  all  moneys  still  due  to  the  United  States  on  the  quota  of  direct  tax  appor- 
tioned by  section  eight  of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  5,  1861,  are  hereby 
remitted  and  relinquished. 

Sec.  3.  That  there  is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  other- 
wise appropriated,  such  sums'  as  may  be  necessary  to  reimburse  each  State,*Territory,  and 
the  District  of  Columbia  for  all  money  found  due  to  them  underthe  provisions  of  this 
Act;  and  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States  is  hereby  directed  to  pay  the  same;  provided, 
that  when  the  sums,  or  any  part  thereof,  credited  to  any  State,  Territory,  or  the  District 
of  Columbia  have  been  collected  from  any  citizen  thereof,  either  directly  or  by  sale,  resale, 
or  lease  of  property,  such  sums  shall  be  held  in  trust  by  such  State,  Territory,  or  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia  for  the  benefit  of  those  of  its  citizens  from  whom  it  was  collected,  or 
their  legal  representatives. 

Mr.  Hampton.  I  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  Senate  for  a  few  minutes  that 
I  may  present  some  facts  in  support  of  the  substitute  for  the  bill  reported 
from  the  Judiciary  Committee  by  the  senior  Senator  from  Mississippi. 

The  status  of  the  direct  tax  under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  the 
amendatory  Acts  are  in  very  great  confusion.  Some  of  the  States  have 
paid  that  tax  in  full,  having  assumed  its  payment  under  the  provisions  of 
the  law  and  received  a  discount  which  was  offered  to  such  States  as  would 
assume  it,  and  thus  avoid  the  expense  to  the  General  Government  of  col- 
lecting it  by  its  own  machinery.  From  other  States  a  large  portion  of  it 
has  been  collected,  either  directly  from  the  citizens  or  from  the  sale  of 
property;  and  under  an  utterly  erroneous  ruling  of  a  former  Comptroller 
of  the  Treasury,  it  has  been  treated  as  a  debt  against  the  States  in  cases 
in  which  they  did  not  assume  it;  and  amounts  due.  to  said  States  by  the 
16°^ 


242 

General  Government  have  been  set  off  against  it.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that 
the  tax  was  not  a  debt  against  the  States  unless  under  the  provisions  of  the 
law  they  assumed  its  payment;  and,  consequently,  as  there  could  be  no  set- 
off except  of  claims  held  in  "  mutual  right,"  these  set-offs  were  in  viola- 
tion of  law  and  without  authority. 

The  bill  introduced  and  favorably  reported  by  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Mississippi  deals  with  this  simple  question  of  set-off,  and  with  that 
alone ;  and  while  it  is  unquestionably  proper  that  it  should  be  introduced 
into  the  bill,  it  is  manifestly  unjust  that  it  should  be  dealt  with  singly  and 
that  other  cases  of  still  greater  hardship  should  remain  undisposed  of 

Three  different  and  conflicting  reports  as  to  the  status  of  these  accounts 
have  been  furnished  to  the  Senate  from  the  Treasury  Department,  one  by 
the  present  Secretary,  made  up  by  a  commission  in  the  department  under 
his  direction,  one  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  and  one  by 
the  late  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Judge  Folger.  These  very  discrepan- 
cies stated  in  these  statements  is  a  very  conclusive  reason  for  dealing  with 
the  whole  question  and  making  a  final  disposition  of  it  at  one  time;  and 
the  amendment  which  I  have  offered  provides  for  this  by  refunding  to  the 
States  the  amounts  which  have  been  heretofore  collected  from  them  and 
remit  those  which  remain  unpaid.  This  will  accomplish  the  purpose 
of  the  bill  of  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  and  will  at  the  same  time  equal- 
ize to  some  extent,  and  so  far  as  can  now  be  done,  the  hardships  which 
have  been  inflicted  upon  other  States  by  the  mode  of  enforcing  this  tax; 
and  a  reference  to  the  Journals  of  the  Senate  will  show  that  the  Legisla- 
tures of  several  States  have  heretofore  instructed  their  Senators  and  re- 
quested their  Representatives  to  support  such  a  measure  as  that  embodied 
in  the  amendment  which  I  have  offered. 

Each  of  the  three  statements  to  which  I  have  referred  gives  approxi- 
mately the  same  sums  as  having  been  paid  by  the  States  of  Georgia  and 
Mississippi.  Mississippi's  quota  was  $413,084  67,  upon  which  has  been 
paid  either  by  collection  or  by  credits  from  amounts  as  due  the  State,  as 
arising  from  the  five  per  cents  due  on  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  $74,- 
742  57,  leaving  a  balance  of  $338,342  10  as  a  debt  due  by  the  State  of 
Mississippi  to  the  United  States,  upon  which,  under  the  ruling  of  the  Treas- 
ury Departijient,  there  will  be  credited  from  year  to  year  whatever  sums 
may  arise  from  the  sale  of  the  public  lands  and  the  swamp  land  interests 
of  that  State.  The  quota  of  the  State  of  Georgia  was  $584,367  33,  upon 
which  was  credited,  on  account  of  recognized  demands  due  the  State  of 
Georgia  by  the  United  States,  the  sum  of  $74,407  75,  leaving  a  balance  as 
a  debt  due  by  that  State,  under  the  ruling  of  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treas- 
ury, of  $512,959  58.  These  figures  are  taken  from  the  statement  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  answer  to  the  Senate  resolution  of  March  28, 
1884,  and  are  no  doubt  approximately  correct.  By  the  same  statement  it 
appears  that  the  quota  of  South  Carolina  was  $363,570  67,  and  on  account 
of  which  there  has  been  collected  from  citizens  as  taxes,  either  directly 
from  the  citizens  in  money  or  by  sale  of  their  real  estate,  the  sum  of  $377,- 
962  30,  showing  that  as  taxes  the  sum  of  $14,390  63  has  been  collected 
from  the  State  in  excess  of  its  entire  quota. 

Not  only,  therefore,  has  there  been  an  excess  of  $14,390  63  collected  as 
taxes  according  to  this  statement  over  and  above  the  entire  quota  of  the 
State,  in  addition  to  a  large  sum  paid  directly  to  the  Direct  Tax  Commis- 
sioners in  money,  but  there  were  sold  in  the  County  of  Beaufort  the  entire 
Town  of  Beaufort,  and  fifty-two  thousand  acres  of  agricultural  land,  which 
produced  the  long-staple  sea-island  cotton,  were  sold  to  realize  the  balance 
of  this  excessive  suni.     In  the  case  of  De  Treville  vs.  Smalls  (98  United 


243 

States,  517)  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  under  a  special  and  peculiar  pro- 
Yision  of  the  law  an  absolute  and  incontestible  title  passed  at  these  sales. 
This  is  to  be  taken  as  an  accepted  result.  The  Court  of  Claims  has  decided, 
in  the  case  of  Simons  vs.  United  States  (19  Court  of  Claims,  601),  that  a 
large  amount  of  the  interest  thus  collected  was  illegal  and  "without  war- 
rant of  law;"  and  in  two  recent  decisions  by  the  same  Court,  which  will 
appear  in  the  twenty-first  volume  of  its  reports,  the  cases  of  SeabrooJc  vs. 
United  States  and  Lawton  vs.  United  States,  the  Court  has  held  that  a  large 
amount  of  the  taxes  for  which  this  land  was  sold  was  excessive  and  ille- 
gally collected. 

In  this  last  case  the  "  Hill  Place,"  valued  at  $4,400  ''in  proportion  to  the 
w^hole  valuation  of  the  State,"  was  sold  to  pay  the  tax  and  bought  by  the 
United  States  for  $1,100  for  a  tax  of  $170  50,  whereof  the  Court  holds  that 
$79  11  "  was  illegally  collected  of  the  claimant  without  warrant  of  law." 
Lawton's  other  place,  known  as  the  "  Lawton  Place,"  valued  at  $7,200,  was 
bought  by  the  United  States  for  $3,000,  and  in  order  to  redeem  the  same  he 
was  required  to  pay  the  sum  of  $600  47;  and  of  this  collection  the  Court 
says  that  "  a  mathematical  calculation  shows  that  he  should  have  paid 
only  $326  91,"  and  that  there  was  illegally  collected  of  him  without  war- 
rant of  law  the  sum  of  $273  91.  So  that  this  enormous  amount  of  real 
estate  was  sold  for  the  collection  of  the  tax,  and  which  was  sold  at  so  great 
a  sacrifice,  was  also  sold,  as  decided  by  the  Court  of  Claims,  for  a  tax 
greatly  in  excess  of  the  amount  with  which  it  was  legally  chargeable. 

What  I  have  said  showing  the  peculiar  hardships  of  this  matter  in  rela- 
tion to  South  Carolina  is  equally  applicable  to  several  other  States,  though 
not  in  the  same  degree,  and  especially  to  Virginia,  Tennessee,  Arkansas, 
Florida,  Louisiana,  and  Texas.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  said  with  great 
justice  that  the  Northern  and  Western  States,  which  have  assumed  and 
paid  these  taxes,  should  not  be  lost  sight  of  in  the  adjustment  of  the  ques- 
tion which  releases  the  seceding  States  of  the  balances  which  were  charged 
against  them.  In  the  right  and  justice  of  this  claim  I  fully  concur,  and 
the  amendments  which  I  have  offered  fully  provide  for  their  cases,  as  it 
does  for  that  of  South  Carolina  and  the  other  Southern  States  I  have  just 
mentioned.  The  statute  making  the  original  levy  of  $20,000,000  to  be 
raised  by  direct  taxation  was  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  a  great  emergency 
in  the  inception  of  the  war  between  the  States. 

It  was  a  mode  of  taxation  which  was  not  favorably  received  in  this 
country,  and,  as  I  have  said,  was  resorted  to  in  an  imminent  emergency. 
The  original  Act  provided  for  the  raising  of  this  sum  annually;  but  it  was 
discontinued  after  the  first  year;  and  on  the  second  of  February,  1867,  a 
concurrent  resolution  was  adopted  by  Congress  suspending  its  operation  for 
the  first  year,  and  leaving  balances  uncollected  such  as  now  stand  against 
the  States  of  Mississippi  and  Georgia. 

In  this  connection  I  send  to  the  desk,  to  be-incorporated  in  my  remarks, 
an  extract  from  the  letter  of  Hon.  Charles  J.  Folger,  late  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  upon  this  subject,  dated  June  14,  1884,  in  which  he  earnestly 
recommends  the  passage  of  a  bill  in  all  material  respects  identical  in  its 
provisions  with  the  amendment  which  I  have  presented. 

The  extract  referred  to  is  as  follows: 

The  purpose  of  the  bill  is  to  relieve  and  discharge  from  further  liability  for  that  tax 
those  States  and  Territories  which  have  not  paid  the  portion  thereof  apportioned  to  them 
respectively;  and  to  repay,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated, 
to  those  States  and  Territories  which  have  paid  any  portion,  the  sums  by  them  respect- 
ively paid.  Though,  by  the  Act  above  cited,  this  tax  was  made  an  annual  one,  an  attempt 
to  collect  it  for  more  than  one  year  has  never  been  made.    By  that  attempt  there  were 


244 

collected  about  $15,000,000,  principally  from  the  States  which  did  not  seek  to  go  out  of  the 
Union ;  and  there  were  left  uncollected  about  $5,000,000,  principally  in  the  States  which 
did  seek  to  go  out  of  the  Union.  The  sum  uncollected  remains  a  charge  against  these 
States,  and,  for  the  purposes  of  this  letter,  it  may  be  assumed  that  it  is  a  valid  and  enforci- 
ble  charge.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  no  legislator  at  this  day  would  propose  to  raise 
revenue  by  a  tax  of  that  kind.  There  is  no  need  of  resorting  to  such  methods.  The  rev- 
enue of  the  Government  from  sources  not  so  extraordinary  and  collectible  by  means  and 
appliances  not  so  objectionable  as  those  involved  therein,  are  ample  for  its  purposes. 
They  are,  indeed,  superabundant,  and  the  concern  of  statesmen  is  rather  how  they  may 
be  reduced  than  how  they  maybe  increased.  The  Government  then  needs  not  the  money 
to  be  got  by  enforcing  this  tax. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  plain  that  to  enforce  it  would  put  a  grievous  burden  upon  the 

Seople  of  the  States  which  are  in  default  in  payment.  It  needs  no  array  of  facts  to  show, 
ongress  in  one  if  not  both  branches  has  this  session  considered  the  proposition  of  large 
pecuniary  aid  to  these  people  to  help  them  place  and  keep  up  common  schools,  and  the 
Senate  has  passed  a  bill  therefor. 

If  there  be  need  for  that  succor,  there  would  be  harm  in  enforcing  this  charge.  It  is  to 
be  considered,  too,  that  while  taxes  are  seldom  looked  upon  with  favor,  this  would  be 
specially  objectionable.  The  purpose  for  which  it  was  laid  can  but  be  remembered  with 
distaste.  It  can  scarcely  be  expected  that  there  would  be  cheerful  aid  from  the  State 
authorities  in  the  enforcement  of  it.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  there  would  be  any. 
Indeed  it  would,  without  further  legislation,  have  to  be  enforced  by  the  machinery  pro- 
vided by  the  Act  under  which  it  was  laid.  This  would  call  for  the  appointment  of  numer- 
ous Federal  officials,  who  would  go  among  the  people  as  obnoxious  exactors.  I  think  it 
must  be  conceded  that  there  is,  and  ever  will  be,  great  reluctance  to  ever  setting  about  the 
collection  of  this  tax.  That  it  never  had  great  favor  is  shown  by  that  it  was  never  put  in 
force  but  one  year.  In  practical  effect,  then,  the  law  for  it  is  obsolete.  Whj^  then,  should 
there  remain  this  unenforced  liability,  a  menace  to  the  people,  the  enforcement  of  which 
is  called  for  by  no  public  need,  nor  by  any  public  opinion  ? 

In  my  judgment  the  people  and  the  property  of  the  States  in  default  should  be  relieved 
and  discharged  from  it. 

But  to  give  such  relief  and  discharge  would  be  to  put  an  inequality  of  burden  upon  the 
States  which  paid,  unless  they,  in  turn,  were  in  some  way  relieved.  This  the  bill  proposes 
to  do  by  repaying  to  them  the  sums  received  from  them.  Assuming  that  the  tax  was 
lawful  and  the  collection,  as  far  as  made,  was  warranted,  this,  apart  from  the  circum- 
stances, would  be  a  proposition  to  donate  to  the  States  surplus  moneys  of  the  United 
States— a  proposition  which  I  should  not  favor.  But,  as  connected  with  the  proposition 
to  discharge  from  onerous  and  needless  liability  one  portion  of  the  people,  it  takes  on  a 
different  character;  it  is  presented  as  an  adjustment  between  different  bodies  of  the  people, 
and  is  worthy  of  acceptation.  Indeed,  it  would  be  unjust  to  the  people  of  the  loyal  States 
to  release  the  people  of  the  once  insurrectionary  States  from  their  liability,  without 
refunding  to  the  former  the  sums  paid  by  them,  and  there  are  analogies  in  the  legislation 
of  Congress. 

Acts  have  been  passed  refunding  to  States  moneys  raised  by  them  for  the  raising,  arm- 
ing, and  equipping  of  troops  for  the  army  of  the  United  States  in  the  civil  war,  and  for 
making  other  refunds  of  like  character.  The  purpose  of  laying  this  direct  tax  was  to  aid 
in  the  ultimate  payment  of  the  extraordinary  expenses  of  the  Government  caused  by  the 
civil  war.  The  raising,  arming,  and  equipping  of  troops  by  the  States  served  to^  keep 
down  those  expenses  for  the  time.  It  was  a  voluntary  act  "upon  the  part  of  the  States. 
There  is  no  violation  of  principle  or  fundamental  law  in  repaying  to  the  States  from  the 
funds  of  the  United  States  the  cost  thereof.  The  purpose  and  effect  fo  this  bill  is  not  so 
unlike  in  nature  to  that  as  not  also  to  be  freed  from  the  objections  to  a  bald  distribution 
among  the  States  of  what  are  called  the  surplus  revenues  of  the  United  States. 

Under  the  peculiar  facts  of  the  case,  and  as  it  is  not  likely  to  become  a  precedent  for 
other  disposals  of  Federal  moneys,  my  judgment  is,  that  the  proposed  measure  is  a  good 
one.  It  is  true  that  exactly  equal  justice  can  not  be  done  in  carrying  out  the  proposition 
of  the  bill.  Thus,  in  some  of  the  Southern  States,  the  tax  was  to  some  extent  enforced. 
Tax  sales  were  made  of  pieces  of  real  estate  in  instances  for  less  than  the  value  of  them. 
Only  the  surplus  of  purchase  money  over  the  tax  and  charges  has  been  available  to  the 
owners,  and  they  have  lost  the  difference  between  that  and  the  total  of  the  purchase  money, 
and  between  the  purchase  money  and  the  real  value. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  Northern  States  the  payment  to  the  United 
States  of  the  tax  was  assumed  by  the  State  government,  which  collected  the  amount  of 
its  own  people  in  its  own  tax  levy.  Of  course,  in  the  changes  of  citizenship  and  ownership 
of  taxable  property,  while  a  repayment  into  the  State  Treasury  will  tend  to  reduce  the 
amount  of  State  tax,  it  will  not  inure  to  the  benefit  of  some  of  those  who  in  1861  were  tax- 
payers. But  these  failures  of  full  and  general  compensation  in  dealing  with  transactions 
so  "long  past  must  ensue,  and  are  not  to  be  potentially  urged  against  proposed  measures, 
which  in  the  main  do  work  equal  benefit. 

Mr.  Hampton.  I  also  request  the  insertion  in  my  remarks  of  the  extract 
from  the  letter  of  the  Hon.  William  Lawrence,  late  Comptroller  of  the 
Treasury,  to  the  Secretary,  in  regard  to  the  same  bill. 

The  extract  is  as  follows: 


245 

The  object  of  these  bills  is  to  remit  so  far  as  not  collected  or  paid,  the  direct  taxes  laid 
upon  and  apportioned  to  the  States,  Territories,  and  District  of  Columbia,  under  the  Direct 
Tax  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  and  to  refund  to  such  States,  Territories,  and  District,  respect- 
ively, the  amount  of  such  taxes,  so  far  as  paid  in  any  mode  whatever. 

I  "have  considered  the  subject  with  care,  and  now  have  the  honor  to  state  that,  in  my 
judgment,  it  is  alike  just,  judicious,  and  practicable  to  remit  all  such  taxes  not  yet  col- 
lected, to  refund  the  amounts  paid  in  any  form  by  any  State  or  Territory,  and  to  refund 
to  private  persons  or  their  legal  representatives  all  amounts  of  such  tax  by  them  paid,  or 
■collected  by  sale  of  real  estate,  or  otherwise. 

Mr.  Hampton.  I  call  attention  to  the  additional  fact,  that  besides  the 
sum  already  mentioned  in  excess  of  the  quota  of  South  Carolina  the  Gov- 
ernment has  realized  from  profits  on  purchase  and  resales  of  land  the  sum 
of  $315,677  86,  and  still  holds  upward  of  four  thousand  acres  of  valuable 
sea-island  cotton  lands  as  military  reservations. 

The  President  pro  tempore.  The  bill  will  go  over  under  the  rule,  and 
the  next  case  will  be  stated. 

EXHIBIT  No.  45. 

DIRECT  TAX  OF  1861. 

Mr.  Henley  also  submitted  the  following  resolution;  which  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  is  hereby  requested  to  furnish  the 
House  of  Representatives  with  a  tabulated  statement  showing  as  follows,  to  wit:  The 
amount  of  money  apportioned  to  and  assessed  upon  the  several  States  and  Territories 
and  District  of  Columbia  under  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  5,  1861,  and  Acts 
supplemental  thereto  and  amendatory  thereof;  the  amount  paid  by  and  allowed  to  each 
thereof,  with  dates  of  each  respective  payment  and  allowance;  the  amount  of  the  credits 
on  account  of  the  ten  and  fifteen  per  cent  deduction  named  in  said  Acts,  and  dates  of  each 
of  such  credits;  the  amount  of  credits  allowed  each  thereof  from  other  sources,  stating  the 
source  and  nature  and  authority  of  such  credits  and  dates  thereof,  respectively;  the  total 
amount  after  deducting  all  such  credits,  allowances,  and  deductions;  the  total  amount 
paid  by  and  the  total  amount  due  by  each  and  all  thereof,  respectively,  and  now  remain- 
ing unpaid,  including  all  taxes,  collected  and  uncollected,  proceeds  from  sales  for  non- 
payment of  taxes,  including  amounts  bid  in  excess  of  taxes,  purchase  money  refunded, 
and  balance  of  proceeds  from  sales,  as  shown  by  the  records  of  his  department  at  this 
date. 


EXHIBIT  No.  46. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Ex.  Doc.  No.  158. 

DIRECT  TAX  APPORTIOxNiMENT— STATEMENT  OF  ACCOUNT 
BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  STATES  A.ND  STATES  AND  TER- 
RITORIES. 

Letter  from  the  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  transmitting,  in  response  to 
a  resolution  of  the  House,  a  statement  of  account  showing  the  apportion- 
ment of  the  direct  tax,  under  the  Act  of  August  S,  1861,  among,  and  assess- 
ments upon  and  collections  from  the  respective  States  and  Territories ;  also 
showing  claims  o.nd  set-offs  applied  on  such  tax,  with  other  information 
respecting  said,  account. 

April  1,  1886 — Referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  and  ordered 
to  be  printed. 

Treasury  Department,  March  31,  1886. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  a  resolution  passed 
I>y  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  seventeenth  instant,  as  follows: 


246 


Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  hereby  requested  to  furnish  to  the 
House  a  statement  of  the  account,  as  it  appears  from  the  books  of  the  Treasury,  between 
the  United  States  and  the  several  States  and  Territories,  of  the  direct  tax  levied  and 
apportioned  to  the  States  and  Territories  by  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  5, 1861^ 
with  the  balances  due  from  or  unpaid  by  any  State  or  Territory  to  the  United  States,  and 
a  detailed  statement  of  the  assessment  and  collection  of  any  portion  of  said  tax  in  any 
State  or  Territory;  also  a  statement  of  any  set-off  of  claims  due  to  the  States  and  Terri- 
tories, and  applied  on  such  tax,  together  with  such  information  as  will  show  the  condition 
of  the  account. 

In  response  thereto  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  a  statement  of  the  Assist- 
ant Register  of  the  Treasury,  of  the  twenty-second  instant,  showing  the 
condition  of  the  accounts  as  they  appear  from  the  books  of  the  Register 
of  the  Treasury  to  date. 

From  this  statement  it  appears  that  no  distinction  has  been  made  in 
the  sums  of  money  charged  and  collected  as  tax,  as  penalty,  costs,  and 
interest,  or  as  surplus  proceeds  of  direct  tax  sales,  which  are  now  being 
refunded  to  original  owners,  but  that  the  Register's  books  show  the  gross 
receipts  under  these  several  heads  additional  to  the  respective  quotas  to 
have  been  credited  to  the  tax  quotas  alone,  as  the  same  have  been  received 
and  covered  into  the  Treasury.  On  the  other  hand,  amounts  covered  in 
as  received  from  the  direct  tax  commissioners  are  credited  to  them  and 
not  credited  to  the  States  they  represent.  It  is,  therefore,  manifest  that 
many  of  the  amounts  set  forth  as  balances  due  to  the  United  States  from 
the  States  and  Territories  are  not  the  amounts  really  due  therefrom,  some 
being  much  too  small  and  others  too  large. 

The  First  Comptroller  having  reported  adjusted  balances  in  many  cases 
differing  largely  from  those  of  the  Register's  Office,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  on  December  10,  1885,  appointed  J.  H.  Lichliter,  V.  N.  Stiles, 
and  F.  Werber,  Jr.,  as  a  commission  to  examine  into,  and  report  upon, 
direct  tax  accounts,  with  a  view  to  an  early  readjustment  thereof  This 
commission  proceeded  to  investigate  all  of  the  books  and  papers  relating 
to  the  direct  tax  accounts,  and  on  the  twentieth  ultimo  made  a  report  to 
the  Department  suggesting  changes  in  many  of  the  adjustments  heretofore 
made. 

A  copy  of  this  report,  which  has  not  yet  been  adopted  by  the  Depart- 
ment, is  herewith  transmitted,  together  with  copies  of  letters  of  the  Acting 
Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  upon  the  same  subject. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

C.   S.   FAIRCHILD,  Acting  Secretary. 

The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Statement  of  the  Condition  of  the  Direct  Tax  Accounts  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  and 
the  District  of  Columbia,  under  Acts  of  August  5, 1861,  and  June  7, 1862,  as  appears  from  the 
books  of  the  Register  of  the  Treasury  to  date. 


15    per  Cent 
Allowance. 

State  or  Territory. 

Amount 
Imposed. 

Amount 

Collected. 

Balance  Due 
United  States. 

Alabama          ..    

$529,313  33 

261,886  00 

254,538  67 

22,905  33 

308,214  00 

3,241  33 

74,683  33 

49,437  33 

77,522  67 

584,367  33 

1,146,551  33 

904,875  33 

$18,285  03 

184,082  18 

254,538  67 

22,189  96 

261,981  90 

3,241  33 

70,332  83 

49,437  33 

43,529  81 

106,963  17 

974,568  63 

769,144  03 

$511,028  30 

Arkansas                    

77,803  82 

* 

California                               

715  37 

$46,232  10 

Clnn  n  Pft.i  pn  t, 

Dakota               --- 

f4",350  50 

Florida                             

33,992  86 

Georgia                                               

477,404  IG 

171,982  70 
135,731  30 

Indiana 

247 


Statement  of  the  Condition  of  the  Direct  Tax  Accounts — Continued. 


15  per  Cent 
Allowance. 


State  or  Territory. 


Amount 
Imposed. 


Amount 
Collected. 


Balance  Due 
United  States. 


$67,813  20 
Y07",054'30" 


63,123  90 
65,523  50 
123,687  19 
75,264  50 
16,278  60 


114,169  10 

* 

32,761  00 
67,519  17 

390,587  81 

235,073  40 

292,007  90 
17,544  56 

31,660  20 

27,172  72 

39,346  43 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts  . . 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi. 

Missouri. 

Nebraska  J 

Nevada  .-. 

New  Hampshire 

New  Jersey 

New  Mexico§  — 

New  York 

North  Carolina. . 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania  — 
Rhode  Island  — 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah. 

Vermont 

Virginia!  

West  Virginia ||.. 

Washington 

Wisconsin 

South  Carolina. - 


$452,088  00 

71,743  33 
713,695  33 
385,886  67 
420,826  00 
436,823  33 
824,581  33 
501,763  33 
108,524  00 
413,084  67 
761,127  33 

19,312  00 

4,592  67 

218,406  67 

450,134  00 

62,648  00 

2,603,918  67 

576,194  67 

1,567,089  33 

35,140  67 

1,946,719  33 

116,963  67 

669,498  00 

355,106  67 

26,982  00 
211,068  00 
729,071  02 
208,479  65 
7,755  33 
519,688  67 
363,570  67 


$384,274  80 

71,743  33 

606,641  03 

268,515  12 

357,702  10 

371,299  83 

700,894  14 

426,498  83 

92,245  40 

101,717  04 

646,958  23 

39,312  00 

4,592  67 

185,645  67 

382,614  83 

62,648  00 

2,213,330  86 

386,194  45 

1,332,025  93 

35,140  67 

1,654,711  43 

99,419  11 

387,734  31 

130,008  06 

"l79,407"80' 
515,569  72 
181,306  93 
4,268  16 
454,944  84 
377,961  30 


$117,371  55 


311,367  63 


190,000  22 


281,763  69 

225,098  61 

26,982  00 


213,501  30 


3,487  17 
25,397  40 


*  Payments  made  on  account,  fifteen  per  cent  allowance  for  cost  of  assuming  collection,  viz.: 

To  California,  September  10,  1884,  deficiency  Act  July  7,  1884 $31,583  26 

To  Kansas,  August  23, 1882,  deficiency  Act  August  5,  1882 10,761  50 

To  Nevada,  September  3, 1884,  deficiency  Act  July  7,  1884 688  90 

To  Oregon,  September  16,  1884,  deficiency  Act  July  7, 1884 5,271  10 

t  In  part  on  compromise. 

X  Nebraska : 

Amount  collected 4,281  60 

Amount  allowed  by  First  Comptroller  of  Treasury  March  27,  1884,  under  Act  August  7, 1882 15,030  40 

$19,312  00 
§  New  Mexico : 

Amount  allowed  by  First  Comptroller  of  Treasury  March  27, 1884,  under  Act  July  1,  1862 62,648  00 

II  Section  1  J.  R.  February  25,  1867,  authorized  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  transfer  $208,479  65  of  the 
amount  originally  imposed  on  Virginia  to  the  State  of  West  Virginia. 
^  Balance  due  State. 

EOS.  A.  FISH,  Assistant  Register. 
Treasury  Department,  Register's  Office,  March  22,  1886. 


Treasury  Department,  Office  of  Internal  Revenue, 
Washington,  March  11,  1886. 

Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  third  instant,  transmitting  a  report  of  J.  H.  Lich- 
liter,  V.  N.  Stiles,  and  F.  Werber,  Jr.,  appointed  as  a  commission  to  exam- 
ine into  and  report  upon  the  direct  tax  accounts,  has  been  received.  The 
report  is  herewith  returned. 

The  amount  of  direct  taxes  which  has  been  paid  is  not  stated  in  any 
summary,  but  I  have  collected  from  the  report  the  amount  of  taxes  paid 
and  the  amount  of  credits  allowed,  or  to  be  allowed,  and  the  amount  now 
due,  which  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 


248 


Quota  Charged. 


Amount  Credited. 


Amount  Due. 


Alabama 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Conn  ecticut 

Dakota 

Delaware 

District  of  Columbia 

Florida 

Georgia .- 

Illinois 

Indiana. 

Iowa 

Kansas - 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Marj'land  -- 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi _-. 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New  Hampshire 

New  Jersey  -. 

New  Mexico .-- 

New  York... 

North  Carolina 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Hhode  Island 

South  Carolina 

Tennessee- 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

Washington .-. 

Wisconsin 


Totals. 


$529,313  33 
261,886  00 
254,538  67 

22,905  33 

308,214  00 

3,241  33 

74,683  33 

49,437  33 

77,522  67 

584,367  33 

1,146,551  33 

904,875  33 

452,088  00 

71,743  33 
713,695  33 
385,886  67 
420,826  00 
436,823  33 
824,581  33 
501,763  33 
108,524  00 
413,084  67 
761,127  33 

19,312  00 

4,592  67 

218,406  67 

450,134  00 

62,648  00 

2,603.918  67 

576,194  67 

1,567,089  33 

35,140  67 
1,946,719  33 
116,963  67 
363,570  67 
669,498  00 
355,106  67 

26,982  00 
211,068  00 
729,071  02 
208,479  65 
7,755  33 
519,688  67 


$18,285 
154,701 
254,538 

22,189 

308,214 

3,241 

74,683 

49,437 

4,760 

117,982 

1,146,551 

904,875 

452,088 

71,743 
713,695 
314,500 
420,826 
436,823 
824,581 
501,763 
108,524 
111,038 
761,127 

19,312 

4,592 

218,406 

450,134 

62,{M8 

2,603,918 

377,452 

1,567,089 

35,140 
1,946,719 
116,963 
222,396 
392,004 
180,841 


211,068 
442,408 
208,479 
4,268 
519,688 


$511,028  30 
107,184  82 


715  3^ 


72,762  37 
466,384  44 


71,385  83 


302,046  21 


198,742  06 


141,174  31 

277,493  52 

174,265  16 

26,982  00 


286,662  93 
""'3",487'i7 


$20,000,000  00 


$17,359,685  51 


$2,640,314  49 


Quota- - $20,000,000  00 

Paid  or  credited :..- - 17,359,685  51 

Amount  due $2,640,314  49 


The  second  column  includes  taxes  collected,  amount  of  fifteen  per  cent 
deduction,  and  credits  allowed. 

I  substitute  this  account  in  place  of  the  statement  transmitted  to  you  in 
letter  of  November  17,  1885. 

I  recommend  that  the  report  of  the  commission  be  referred  to  the  Fifth 
Auditor  for  a  readjustment  of  the  direct  tax  accounts  on  the  basis  of  the 
figures  furnished  in  the  report,  and  that  the  books  of  the  Department  be 
kept  so  that  official  statements  of  the  amounts  of  tax  collected  and  the 
amount  due  may  hereafter  agree,  whether  taken  from  the  books  of  the 
First  Comptroller,  or  of  any  other  officer  authorized  to  keep  such  accounts. 

As  to  the  accounts  of  the  Direct  Tax  Commissioners,  I  recommend  that 
the  First  Comptroller  be  requested,  after  the  accounts  are  readjusted,  to 
institute  suits  on  the  bonds  of  the  delinquent  Commissioners  for  recovery 


249 

of  amounts  collected  by  them  and  not  accounted  for,  unless,  in  your  opin- 
ion, such  action  is  deemed  for  any  reason  unadvisable. 

The  report,  page  17,  speaks  of  the  sum  of  $1,752  52,  charged  in  the 
adjusted  account  with  the  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  Florida  as  "tax, 
penalty,  interest,  and  costs,  not  divisible." 

This  office  has  no  information  which  will  enable  it  to  state  how  much  of 
this  is  tax. 

As  to  the  sum  of  $4,126  to  which  the  Commission  call  attention  in  con- 
nection with  the  Florida  accounts,  page  21,  paid  for  redemption  of  certain 
property,  I  suggest  that  the  Fifth  Auditor  take  that  into  consideration- in 
his  examination,  and  ascertain  the  amount  of  tax  included  in  the  amount 
from  the  books  on  file  in  the  department,  as  near  as  can  be  ascertained, 
giving  proper  credit  therefor. 

The  views  of  a  majority  of  the  Commissioners  as  to  what  items  are  proper 
credits  to  the  States  (page  59)  are  concurred  in. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully, 

H.  C.  ROGERS, 

Acting  Commissioner. 
Hon.  Daniel  Manning,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  Office  of  Internal  Revenue, 
Washington,  March  20,  1886. 

Sir:  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  sixteenth  instant,  in  regard  to  the 
recent  decision  in  the  Court  of  Claims,  in  the  case  of  Cato  A.  Seabrook, 
Administrator,  etc.,  vs.  The  United  States,  as  affecting  the  amount  of  direct 
tax  due  from  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  according  to  the  report  of  the 
Commission  which  has  recently  been  investigating  the  direct  tax  accounts. 

In  reply,  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  in  my  opinion  it  is  feasible  to 
obtain  from  the  direct  tax  books  relating  to  the  assessment  and  collection 
of  direct  tax  in  South  Carolina,  which  are  on  file  in  this  office,  and  other 
offices  in  the  Treasury  Department,  a  statement  of  the  direct  tax  held  to 
have  been  illegally  collected  by  the  decision  above  referred  to,  at  least 
approximately. 

The  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  assessed  a  tax  upon  city,  town,  village, 
and  borough  lots  of  80  cents  ad  valorem  on  each  $100  of  valuation,  and  on 
other  property  $2  ad  valorem  on  each  $100  of  valuation. 

This  was  decided  by  the  Court  to  have  been  an  erroneous  method  of 
assessment. 

The  assessment  should  have  been  uniform  throughout  the  State. 

In  my  opinion  this  decision  should  be  allowed  to  stand  as  final  instead 
of  being  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court. 

I  would  suggest  that  in  the  readjustment  of  the  accounts,  as  proposed, 
the  Fifth  Auditor  be  requested  to  take  into  consideration  this  decision  in 
determining  the  balance  of  direct  tax  due  from  the  State ;  and  I  would  also 
suggest  that  the  Commission  which  has  been  occupied  for  several  weeks  on 
this  matter  of  direct  tax  accounts,  and  are  familiar  with  the  books  and 
papers  relating  to  the  subject,  would  be  suitable  persons  to  obtain  the  data 
desired. 

Very  respectfully, 

H.  C.  ROGERS, 

Acting  Commissioner. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


250 

REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    DIRECT    TAX    ACCOUNTS. 

Treasury  Department,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  February  20,  1886.         j 

Sir:  The  undersigned,  designated  by  your  letter  of  the  tenth  of  December,  1885,  "to 
make  an  investigation  into  the  direct  tax  accounts  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  an  early 
adjustment  thereof,  with  instructions  to  examine  into  the  entire  matter  of  the  direct  tax 
accounts  as  between  the  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  and  the  States  for  which  they  acted, 
also  between  the  United  States  and  all  the  States  and  Territories  concerned,  and  to  report 
the  result  of  the  investigation,  with  such  suggestions  as  you  [they]  may  see  proper  to 
make,"  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report: 

^  One  of  the  first  questions  presented  was  as  to  the  scope  of  the  investigation.  After  discus- 
sion and  conference  upon  the  subject  it  was  decided,  from  what  seemed  to  have  been  the 
object  in  requesting  the  appointment  of  this  Commission,  that  it  was  not  intended  to  go 
back  01  settlements  of  accounts  heretofore  certified  .by  the  Honorable  First  Comptroller  of 
the  Treasury,  unless  clerical  errors  should  be  discovered  in  the  accounts,  or  there  should 
be  found  some  new  matter  to  act  upon  which  would  change  or  correct  items  in  these 
accounts,  and  that  the  province  of  the  Commission  was  simply  to  receive  this  new  matter, 
if  any,  from  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  consider  and  report  any  additional 
credits  to  which  the  States  and  Territories,  or  Direct  Tax  Commissioners,  have  become 
entitled  since  the  several  adjustments  of  accounts  were  made,  and  to  report  how  maj^  be 
reconciled  the  difference  between  the  several  offices  of  the  department  as  they  appear  in 
statements  prepared  from  the  books  of  the  offices. 

Proceeding  upon  this  view,  it  was  found  that  the  quota  of  the  direct  tax  apportioned  to 
each  of  the  following  States  has  been  paid:  California,  Connecticut,  Dakota  Territory, 
Delaware,  District  of  Columbia,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Kentucky,  Maine,  Mary- 
land, Massachusetts,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  Missouri,  Nebraska,  Nevada,  New  Hampshire, 
New  Jersey,  New  Mexico,  New  York,  Ohio,  Oregon,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island,  Vermont, 
West  Virginia,  and  Wisconsin,  if  the  recommendations  herein  made  in  relation  thereto 
be  approved. 

The  account  with  the  State  of  California  has  been  balanced  since  March  29, 1884,  the 
date  of  the  letter  of  the  Honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  hereinafter  referred  to. 

Hereto  appended  as  part  of  this  report  are  presented  condensed  statements  of  the 
accounts  with  the  several  States  and  the  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  the  "  insurrec- 
tionary districts"  as  they  have  been  adjusted  and  certified  by  the  Honorable  First 
Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  and  with  several  of  them  statements  of  the  accounts  as  this 
Commission,  from  examination  of  the  books  and  papers  accompanying  the  accounts, 
consider  that  they  should  have  been  adjusted;  and  it  is  recommended  that  the  accounts 
be  readjusted  according  to  these  figures. 

Where  no  remarks  upon  the  accounts  are  made  they  should  be  considered  as  approved 
by  this  Commission. 

In  connection  with  the  statements  of  the  accounts  suggested  by  the  Commission,  which, 
if  adopted,  would  make  certain  corrections  in  the  accounts  as  adjusted,  the  following 
remarks  under  the  name  of  each  State  are  to  be  taken  as  furnishing  explanations  of  the 
changes  made,  and  also  of  the  difference  between  the  balances  due  from  some  of  the  States 
as  found  by  the  Commission  and  hereinafter  stated,  and  the  balances  due  from  these  States 
as  given  in  the  statement  accompanying  the  letter  of  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  dated  March  29,  1884,  addressed  to  Hon.  George  F.  Edmunds,  President  pro 
tempore  of  the  United  States  Senate,  printed  in  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  No.  142,  first  session  Forty- 
eighth  Congress. 

This  statement  of  the  honorable  Secretary,  showing  the  balances  due  at  that  date  from 
the  several  States,  it  is  learned  was  based  upon  the  accounts  as  shown  by  the  books  of  the 
office  of  the  Register  of  the  Treasury.  These  balances  appear  in  some  instances  to  be  the 
difference  between  the  quota  apportioned  to  each  State  and  the  amount  of  cash  deposited 
in  the  Treasury  by  the  Commissioners  for  the  State,  regardless  of  the  source  from  which 
this  money  was  derived,  of  the  items  of  expense  in  collecting  the  same,  and  of  the  balances 
due  from  the  Commissioners  for  several  of  the  States;  while  in  other  instances  they  ar^ 
the  difference  between  the  quota  of  the  State  and  the  amount  of  cash  deposited  and  for- 
mally covered  into  the  Treasury  by  warrants  in  the  name  of  the  State,  without  regard  to 
the  cash  deposited  and  covered  in  by  warrants  in  the  names  of  the  Commissioners.  Thus, 
the  balances  reported  as  due  in  some  cases  are  too  large,  and  in  others  they  are  too  small. 
These  facts  should  be  borne  in  mind  when  comparing  the  balances  due  from  the  States 
as  herein  found  with  the  balances  given  in  the  honorable  Secretary's  statement. 

ALABAMA, 

From  the  records  it  appears  that  no  collections  on  account  of  the  direct  tax  were  made 
in  the  State  of  Alabama,  for  the  reason  that  only  two  Commissioners  were  appointed  and 
qualified,  and  they  were  instructed  from  the  Internal  Revenue  Office  that  until  a  third 
Commissioner  should  be  appointed  they  could  only  perform  such  work  as  was  of  a  pre- 
liminary character,  as  the  collection  of  data  for  the  assessment  of  the  tax. 

Therefore  no  account  appears  with  the  Commissioners  for  this  State. 

Upon  examination  of  the  books  of  the  Department  it  has  been  found  that  the  amounts 
of  $8,491  46  and  |9,793  57,  making  the  total  sum  of  $18,285  03,  due  to  the  State  of  Ala- 
bama on  account  of  two  per  cent  and  three  per  cent  on  net  proceeds  of  certain  sales  of 


251 

public  lands  within  its  limits,  under  Acts  of  March  2,  1819,  and  September  4,  1841,  have 
been  carried  to  the  credit  of  the  State  on  account  of  the  direct  tax,  though  accounts  have 
not  yet  been  adjusted  formally  taking  up  these  amounts. 

The  second  of  these  amounts  has  become  due  to  the  State  since  the  date  of  the  letter 
of  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  above  referred  to,  and  will  reduce  the  balance 
due  from  the  State  as  reported  by  him  to  the  amount  hereinafter  stated  as  due. 

•  ARKANSAS. 

The  account  of  the  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  Arkansas  is  stated  with  only  two  of 
them.  The  record  of  "  Decisions  of  Commissioners,  Arkansas,"  from  November  9,  1865, 
to  May  25,  1866,  shows  that  a  third  Commissioner  was  acting  and  took  part  in  the  meet- 
ings of  the  Board  during  that  time,  and  other  papers  and  records  with  the  account  and 
in  the  Internal  Revenue  Office  indicate  that  he  entered  upon  the  duties  of  his  office  about 
May  15,  1865.  It  does  not  appear  why  this  third  Commissioner  was  not  also  charged  in 
the  account  adjusted,  and  it  is  recommended  that  this  question  be  considered  in  connec- 
tion with  the  readjustment  of  the  account. 

In  the  statement  of  the  account  with  these  Commissioners  as  made  by  this  Commission, 
the  amount  found  for  the  item  "tax  uncollected"  differs  from  the  amount  found  in  the 
account  as  adjusted  by  the  sum  of  $501  90,  which  difference  is  thus  explained : 

Tax  on  land  sold  and  not  considered  in  account  adjusted.. $566  86 

Less  tax  on  land  sold  and  redeemed,  and  which  was  credited  in  the  adjustment. ..    64  96 

$501  90 

In  the  account  adjusted  the  amount  of  tax  upon  the  lands  sold,  except  the  amount  of 
$64  96  as  above  stated,  was  not  deducted  in  order  to  find  the  balance  of  tax  remaining 
uncollected,  but  was  charged  to  the  Commissioners  as  part  of  the  gross  amount  of  "  pro- 
ceeds of  sales  of  land,"  and  thus  was  practically  twice  charged  to  them,  having  been  first 
charged  in  the  quota  apportioned  to  the  State. 

An  error  similar  to  that  appearing  in  this  adjustment  occurs  in  each  of  the  accounts  as 
adjusted  with  the  Commissioners  for  the  States  in  which  there  were  sales  of  land  for 
taxes,  and  comes  from  the  failure  to  consider  that  the  amount  of  tax  assessed  upon  the 
lands  sold  for  non-payment  thereof  within  the  time  prescribed  by  law  was  properly  to 
be  deducted  from  the  quota  apportioned  to  the  State,  and  in  so  far  treated  separately 
and  distinct  from  the  other  items  constituting  the  charges  covered  by  the  proceeds  of 
sales.  These  errors  in  the  accounts  will  be  pointed  out  in  the  remarks  made  in  connec- 
tion with  each  State,  but  this  brief  general  explanation  as  to  the  origin  of  the  errors  is 
intended  to  apply  to  all  of  the  accounts. 

In  the  adjustment  of  this  account,  among  the  items  suspended  for  which  the  Commis- 
sioners claimed  cf edit  were  the  following : 

Amount  of  property  sold  and  redeemed  before  purchase  money  was  paid $4,845  00 

Amount  of  property  sold  and  redeemed  after  purchase  money*^was  paid 3,949  17 

Amount  of  interest  paid  to  purchasers  of  property  after  purchase  money  had 
been  paid ._ 48  31 

$8,842  48 
These  items  were  suspended  because,  in  the  first  two  cases,  copies  of  the  certificates  of 
redemption  were  not  furnished,  and,  in  the  last,  "satisfactory  evidence  of  payment"  was 
not  furnished.  When  it  is  considered,  however,  that  allowance  was  made  to  the  Commis- 
sioners for  a  sum  of  $18,600  upon  their  statement  that  sales  to  this  amount  were  not 
completed  by  the  payment  of  the  bids,  it  is  thought  that  the  above  items  could  be  allowed 
upon  the  same  evidence,  and  this  evidence  is  regarded  by  the  Commission  as  sufficient 
now  to  allow  Credit  therefor  in  view  of  the  impracticability  of  securing  better  evidence 
after  such  a  long  lapse  of  time,  and  the  probability  that  if  the  property  had  not  been  re- 
deemed and  the  purchase  money  repaid,  with  interest  thereon,  claims  would  have  been 
presented  to  the  Department  for  surplus  and  purchase  money. 

Therefore  allowance  of  credit  to  the  amount  of  $8,842  48  is  recommended  upon  read- 
justment of  the  account ;  and  if  this  credit  be  allowed,  the  balance  due  from  the  Commis- 
sioners to  the  United  States  will  be  reduced  to  $7,884  28. 

A  comparison  of  the  Register's  books  with  the  adjustment  of  the  account  of  the  Com- 
missioners for  Arkansas  shows  that  deposits  of  the  sums  of  $2,400  and  $254  26,  made  by 
the  Commissioners,  were  covered  into  the  Treasury  by  Internal '  Revenue  warrants  No. 
363,  third  quarter  1865,  and  No.  241,  second  quarter  1866,  respectively,  which  have  not  been 
credited  on  the  Register's  books  for  the  apparent  reason  that  the  warrants  were  not  issued 
in  the  name  of  the  State. 

COLORADO. 

The  amount  of  $20,673  07  has  been  found  due  to  the  State  of  Colorado  for  taking  the 
"interdecennial  census,"  under  Act  of  March  3,  1879,  and  has  been  ordered  to  be  carried 
to  the  credit  of  the  State  on  account  of  the  direct  tax,  which  will  reduce  the  balance  due 
from  the  State  to  the  sum  hereinafter  stated. 


252 


The  sum  of  $35,506  89  has  been  found  due  to  Dakota  Territory  for  taking  the  "  inter- 
decennial  census,"  under  Act  of  March  3,  1879,  and  the  amount  of  $3,241  33  from  this 
sum  has  been  ordered  to  be  carried  by  adjustment  to  the  credit  of  the  Territory  in  full 
payment  of  the  direct  tax  apportioned  to  it. 


In  the  adjustment  of  the  account  with  the  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  Florida  an 
error  of  $1,(J45  57  appears  on  the  credit  side  and  in  the  balance  stated  as  due  from  them 
to  the  United  States,  which  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  Commissioners  were  charged 
with  this  amount  in  the  proceeds  of  sales.  The  tax  assessed  upon  the  property  sold  to 
private  parties  should  have  been  deducted  from  the  proceeds  of  sales,  and  the  amount  of 
tax  upon  the  property  bid  in  for  the  United  States  should  also  have  been  credited.  The 
statement  of  the  account  presented  by  this  Commission,  which  is  based  upon  the  figures 
found  in  the  adjustment  of  the  account  (except  the  several  items  of  tax  upon  lands  sold), 
shows  the  changes  w^hich  it  is  thought  should  be  made  in  readjusting  the  account. 

The  item  of  $1,752  52  charged  in  the  adjusted  account  as  "tax,  penalty,  interest,  and 
costs  not  divisible,"  is  made  up  of  several  sums  of  money  which  the  records  of  the  Com- 
missioners show  they  received,  but  the  entries  in  the  records  do  not  indicate  what 
proportion  of  this  amount  was  paid  for  each  of  those  charges  separately,  and  it  is  possi- 
ble that  the  whole  amount  may  have  been  paid  as  tax. 

The  charge  against  the  Commissioners  of  the  sum  of  $4,126,  and  the  credit  of  the 
same  sum  deposited  by  them,  appears  to  be  for  money  paid  by  the  trustees  of  the  Florida 
Railroad  Company  in  redemption  of  certain  lots  of  land  claimed  to  be  owned  by  the 
company  in  Fernandina,  Florida,  and  which  had  been  sold  for  taxes  unpaid.  From  the 
papers  and  facts  in  the  case  it  cannot  be  determined  how  this  money  has  been  regarded 
by  the  officers  of  the  Department,  whether  as  a  payment  of  the  tax,  penalty,  interest, 
and  costs  charged  upon  the  land,  or  as  made  in  redemption  of  the  lands  after  sale,  or  as 
an  amount  erroneously  received  and  deposited  by  the  Commissioners  and  subject  to 
claim  for  refund  thereof.  The  best  information  obtainable  is  that  the  lots  claimed  by  the 
Florida  Railroad  Company  were  sold  for  taxes  unpaid,  some  of  the  lots  being  purchased 
by  private  parties  and  others  bid  in  for  the  United  States ;  that  subsequently— but  after 
a  lapse  of  more  than  sixty  days  from  the  date  of  sale— the  trustees  of  the  company  paid 
the  sum  mentioned  to  secure  the  redemption  of  the  lots,  and  the  same  was  received  by 
one  of  the  Commissioners,  subject  to  the  approval  of  his  associates  and  the  Department; 
that  the  Department  decided,  after  taking  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney-General  of  the 
United  States,  that  under  the  facts  and  the  law,  the  lots  could  not  be  redeemed  as  pro- 
posed by  the  trustees  acting  for  the  company;  that  the  trustees  refused  to  receive  back 
the  money  at  the  request  of  the  Commissioners,  and  it  was  therefore  'forwarded  to  the 
Department  for  deposit;  and  that  the  lots  have  been,  since  about  that  time,  and  are  now, 
in  the  possession  of  the  company. 

It  appears  from  a  certificate  of  the  Commissioner  who  received  th6  money  that  $3,125  80 
was  paid  to  cover  the  tax,  penalty,  interest,  and  costs  due  upon  the  lots,  and,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  certificate,  "  an  additional  sum  of  $1,000,  out  of  which  is  to  be  paid  whatever 
additional  amount  may  be  found  due  for  costs  in  the  redemption  of  said  lots,  which  costs 
may  have  been  omitted  in  the  within  account,  if  there  should  be  any,  and  also  to  pay 
any  deficiency  that  may  be  discovered  in  making  up  the  account,  the  remainder,  if  any, 
to  be  restored  to  the  said  John  McRae,  trustee." 

It  is  recommended  that  the  question  of  the  proper  application  of  this  money  be  consid- 
ered and  determined,  and  if  legislation  be  necessary  for  this  purpose,  that  it  be  requested. 

Special  attention  is  called  to  these  two  sums  of  |l,752  52  and  $4,126  for  the  reason  that 
the  amount  of  tax  included  and  paid  therein  has  not  been  credited  upon  the  quota  appor- 
tioned to  the  State  of  Florida,  and  it  is  believed  that  upon  readjustment  o*f  the  account 
credit  should  be  given  for  this  amount,  and,  if  from  the  records  the  actual  sum  of  the  tax 
cannot  be  found,  that  it  should  be  determined  by  some  equitable  method  of  proportion. 

The  amount  of  "  tax  uncollected,"  as  shown  in  the  statement  of  the  account  by  this 
Commission,  will  be  reduced  by  whatever  sum  may  be  allowed  as  tax  in  these  two  items. 

An  examination  shows  that  the  sum  of  $905,  deposited  by  the  Commissioners  for  Flor- 
ida, and  covered  into  the  Treasury  by  warrant  K o.  2,  second  quarter,  1864,  has  not  been 
credited  to  the  State  on  the  Register's  books  for  the  apparent  reason  that  the  warrant  was 
not  issued  in  the  name  of  the  State. 

GEORGIA. 

On  May  12,  1883,  the  honorable  First  Comptroller  decided  that  the  sum  of  $35,555  42, 
appropriated  by  the  Act  of  March  3, 1883,  to  "  refund  to  the  State  of  Georgia  certain  money 
expended  by  said  State  for  the  common  defense  in  1777,"  should  "be  paid  to  the  Treasurer 
of  the  United  States,  to  be  by  him  deposited  to  the  credit  of  the  State  of  Georgia  on  account 
of  direct  taxes  charged  against  the  State."  This  amount  has  not  yet  been  formally  carried 
by  adjustment  to  the  credit  of  the  State  in  accordance  with  his  decision,  but  when  this 
shall  have  been  done  the  amount  of  "tax  uncollected,"  as  shown  bj'  the  account  adjusted 
with  the  Commissioners,  will  be  reduced  to  $466,384  44. 


253 

LOUISIANA, 

Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  the  State  of  Louisiana  has  a  claim  against  the  United 
States  for  five  per  cent  on  net  proceeds  of  sales  of  public  lands  within  its  limits,  and  the 
amount  due  thereon  has  been  ascertained  to  be  $21,769  25  upon  an  account  now  held  in 
the  office  of  the  First  Comptroller  awaiting  an  appropriation  by  Congress  for  payment  of 
the  same.  This  amount  will  be  subject  to  a  deduction  on  account  of  an  unascertained 
sum  (about  $2,000)  due  from  the  State  for  interest  upon  certain  bonds  held  by  the  United 
States.  The  balance  will  probably  be  carried,  under  decisions  of  the  honorable  First 
Comptroller,  to  the  credit  of  the  State  on  account  of  the  direct  tax  apportioned  to  the 
State  and  remaining  unpaid. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The  sum  of  $41,453  91  has  been  found  due  to  the  State  of  Mississippi  for  two  per  cent  and 
three  per  cent  on  net  proceeds  of  sales  of  public  lands  within  its  limits,  which  has  not  yet 
been  formally  carried  by  adjustment  to  the  credit  of  the  State  on  account  of  the  direct  tax. 

NORTH   CAROLINA. 

No  change  is  recommended  in  the  accounts  adjusted  with  the  Commissioners  for  the 
State  of  North  Carolina. 

SOUTH   CAROLINA. 

In  the  adjustment  of  the  account  with  the  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  South  Caro- 
lina, they  were  charged  with  the  gross  amount  of  the  proceeds  of  sales  of  land,  which 
included  the  amount  of  the  tax  assessed  upon  the  lands  sold.  In  order  to  ascertain  the 
true  amount  of  the  tax  remaining  uncollected  the  tax  upon  the  lands  sold  should  have 
been  deducted  from  the  quota  apportioned  to  the  State.  This  amount  is  found  to  be 
$1,973  29.  As  the  bidding  in  of  property  at  the  sale  for  the  United  States  worked  an  extin- 
guishment of  the  charges  against  the  property  sold,  the  amount  of  the  tax  assessed  upon 
this  property  should  also  have  been  deducted  from  the  quota.    This  amount  is  $9,881  75. 

Upon  the  examination  of  this  adjustment  it  is  found  that  the  Commissioners  have  been 
twice  charged  with  the  sum  of  $248  as  the  tax  collected  upon  three  plantations  in  Saint 
Luke's  Parish.  These  three  items  were  entered  in  two  books,  and  the  accountants  charged 
them  without  observing  that  the  entries  were  duplicated. 

In  the  statement  of  the  account  presented  by  this  Commission,  these  errors  are  cor- 
rected, and  the  item  of  "  tax  uncollected  "  is  reduced  from  $152,781  35  to  $141,174  31. 

In  the  statement  accompanying  the  honorable  Secretary's  letter  of  March  29,  1884,  it  is 
represented  that  the  State  of  South  Carolina  has  paid  the  sum  of  $14,390  63  in  excess  of 
the  quota  apportioned.  The  amount  paid  as  shown  by  the  statement  is  $377,961  30.  At- 
tention is  called  to  the  remarks  hereinbefore  made  as  to  the  source  from  which  his  state- 
ment was  compiled.  The  account  with  the  Commissioners  for  this  State  shows  more 
clearly,  perhaps,  than  any  other  the  differences  which  may  arise  from  different  methods 
of  bookkeeping.  The  account,  as  adjusted,  shows  a  much  larger  sum,  to  wit,  $471,378  59, 
as  cash  deposited  and  transferred,  than  even  that  given  in  the  statement,  but  some  of  the 
deposits  appear  to  have  been  made  in  the  name  of  the  State  and  others  in  the  name  of  the 
Commissioners,  and  these  were  carried  to  different  accounts  upon  the  Register's  books. 

The  amount  paid  as  given  in  the  statement  of  the  honorable  Secretary  is  the  sum  of 
these  deposits  made  in  the  name  of  the  State.  The  deposits,  however,  shown  by  the 
account,  and  also  those  carried  upon  the  Register's  books,  represent  collections  made  by 
the  Commissioners  from  all  sources,  and  embrace  amounts  received,  in  addition  to  tax, 
as  penalties,  interest,  costs,  proceeds  of  sales  and  redemptions,  and  resales  of  property 
originally  bid  in  for  the  United  States,  rents,  etc. 

The  amount  collected  as  tax  can  be  determined  only  by  the  proper  adjustment  of  the 
account,  and  this  amount  deducted  from  the  quota  apportioned  to  the  State  will  give  the 
balance  of  tax  uncollected.  Therefore  an  account  which  shows  the  deposits  from  all 
sources  without  distinguishing  them  will  not  show  the  amounts  of  tax  paid  and  remaining 
unpaid. 

The  Court  of  Claims  in  the  case  (No.  14189)  of  Cato  A.  Seabrook,  Administrator  of  James 
B.  Seabrook,  vs.  The  United  States,  recently  decided  that  certain  amounts  collected  as  tax, 
penalty,  interests,  and  costs  had  been  erroneously  collected  by  reason  of  the  adoption  by 
the  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  South  Carolina  of  two  rates  of  assessment,  one  rate 
for  town  lots  and  a  different  and  higher  rate  for  the  other  lands.  Whatever  sums  collected 
as  tax-  may  be  refunded  to  taxpayers  of  South  Carolina  in  pursuance  of  this  decision,  or 
for  any  other  reason  as  erroneously  or  illegally  collected,  will  change  the  balance  of  tax 
yet  due  from  the  State  as  herein  reported. 

TENNESSEE. 

In  the  account  adjusted  with  the  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  Tennessee  they  were 
charged  with  the  gross  proceeds  of  sales  of  property  to  individuals,  including  the  tax 
assessed  upon  the  lands  sold.  From  statements  of  the  Commissioners  accompanying  the 
account  it  is  learned  that  the  amount  of  the  tax  upon  lands  sold  to  private  parties  was 
$8,728  93,  and  the  tax  upon  the  lands  bid  in  for  the  United  States  was  $1,728  73.  In  the 
adjustment  the  Commissioners  should  have  been  charged  with  the  proceeds  of  the  sales 
of  lands  exclusive  of  the  amount  of  the  tax  upon  the  lands  sold,  and  they  should  have 


254 

been  credited  with  the  sum  of  the  tax  assessed  upon  the  lands  bid  in  for  the  United  States, 
and  these  two  items  of  tax  should  have  been  added  to  the  amount  of  tax  found  to  have 
been  collected  before  sale,  "and  the  whole  sum  deducted  from  the  quota  in  order  to  deter- 
mine the  balance  of  tax  uncollected. 

This  Commission  presents,  in  connection  with  the  adjusted  account,  a  statement  of  the 
account  as  it  should  be  readjusted  to  correct  these  errors.  By  warrant  bearing  date  of 
September  30,  1885,  the  sum  of  $12  25  was  covered  into  the  Treasury  as  received  by  one 
of  the  collectors  of  internal  revenue  in  Tennessee  on  account  of  the  direct  tax.  This 
amount  will  be  carried  by  formal  adjustment  to  the  credit  of  the  State,  and  it  has  been 
considered  in  finding  the  balance  due,  as  stated  by  this  Commission. 


From  correspondence  filed  with  the  account  adjusted,  with  the  Commissioners  for  the 
State  of  Texas  it  appears  that  immediately  after  the  assessment  of  the  tax  upon  the  lands 
within  the  State,  and  notice  that  the  same  was  due  and  payable,  the  Commissioners  began 
to  collect  not  only  the  tax,  but  also  penalty,  interest,  and  costs,  without  allowing  to  the 
land  owners  the  sixty  days  provided  m  Section  3,  of  Act  of  June  7,  1862,  for  the  payment 
of  the  tax  without  penalty,  interest,  and  costs.  This  practice  of  the  Commissioners  was 
called  to  the  attention  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  by  parties  interested  in 
the  subject.  That  officer,  in  a  letter  dated  May  17,  1866,  to  one  of  the  Commissioners  for 
Texas,  and  in  a  letter  in  response  to  the  complaint  of  a  land  owner,  indicates  that  the 
erroneous  construction  of  the  law  by  the  Commissioners,  which  was  evidenced  by  their 
practice  in  making  collections,  was  due  to  the  fact  that  from  inadvertence  these  Commis- 
sioners had  not  been  furnished  with  a  copy  of  the  general  instructions  which  had  been 
prepared  by  the  Internal  Revenue  Office,  in  the  first  instance,  for  the  guidance  of  the 
Commissioners  for  the  State  of  Virginia,  and  copies  of  which  had  been  transmitted  to  the 
Commissioners  for  the  other  States.    These  general  instructions  were  as  follows : 

Treasury  Department,  Office  of  Internal  Revenue,  ) 

May  2,  1863.      / 

Gentlemen  :  Your  letter  of  the  twenty-eighth  ultimo,  to  the  Hon.  S.  P.  Chase,  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  submitting  several- questions  in  regard  to  the  true  construction  of  cer- 
tain sections  in  the  Act  of  June  7,  1862,  and  the  Act  of  February  6,  amendatory  thereto, 
has  been  referred  to  me  for  an  answer.  Having  considered  the  subject  I  give  my  answer 
in  the  following  terms,  to  the  several  questions  propounded. 

First— The  last  assessment  of  the  lands  under  the  authority  of  the  State  or  Territory 
previous  to  the  first  of  January,  1861,  is  to  be  taken  as  the'  basis  for  ascertaining  the 
direct  tax,  under  the  Act  of  June  7,  1862.  When  the  proportion  of  the  tax  to  be  charged 
upon  a  tract  of  land  is  ascertained,  then  fifty  per  centum  of  said  tax  is  to  be  added  and 
charged  upon  the  land.  This  tax  with  the  addition  of  fifty  per  cent  remains  as  a  lien 
upon  the  land  until  it  is  sold  or  the  lien  otherwise  discharged. 

The  third  section  provides  that  the  owner  may,  within  sixty  days  after  the  tax  com- 
missioners shall  have  fixed  the  amount  of  the  tax,  pay  the  tax  charged  upon  the  land, 
and  take  a  certificate  of  such  payment,  and  provides  that  the  land  shall  thereupon  be 
discharged  from  said  tax. 

The  word  "  tax  "  in  this  section  does  not,  in  my  opinion,  include  the  fifty  per  cent.  The 
owner,  upon  paying  the  amount  of  the  tax  without  the  fifty  per  cent  additional  within 
sixty  days  after  the  tax  shall  have  been  laid,  is  entitled  to  have  his  land  free  from  the 
lien  of  the  tax,  and  also  free  from  the  lien  of  the  fifty  per  cent  to  be  added  thereto  pur- 
suant to  the  first  section. 

Secondly— The  ten  per  cent  interest  mentioned  in  the  seventh  section  is  to  be  calculated 
from  the  day  of  the  elate  of  the  laying  of  the  tax. 

Thirdly — The  ten  per  cent  interest  mentioned  in  the  seventh  section  as  amended,  is  to  be 
chargedj  not  on  the  amount  of  the  tax  and  penalty,  but  on  the  amount  of  the  tax  only. 
The  owner  who  pays  on  or  before  the  day  of  sale  under  the  clause  in  the  amendatory 
Act  is  required  to  pay  the  amount  of  the  tax  without  the  addition  of  fifty  per  cent,  but 
with  the  addition  of  ten  per  cent  interest  on  the  amount  of  the  tax  with  the  cost  of  adver- 
tising in  order  to  redeem  his  land.  If  the  owner,  being  a  loyal  person  of  the  United 
States,  or  taking  oath  to  support  the  Constitution,  shall  pay  the  amount  of  the  tax  and 
penalty  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  fifteen  per  cent  from  the  date  of  the  President's  procla- 
mation, together  with  the  expenses  of  the  sale  and  subsequent  proceedings,  he  is  entitled 
to  redeem  his  land  from  sale;  but  such  redemption  will  not  be  complete  without  the  full 
payment  of  the  whole  tax  and  penalty  with  interest  and  expenses  as  aforesaid. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  Act  provides  for  three  distinct  states  of  circumstances.  If 
the  owner  appears  within  sixty  days  after  the  tax  has  been  laid  by  the  Commissioners 
and  pays  the  amount  of  the  tax  only,  he  is  entitled  to  redeem.  If  he  delays  to  come  for- 
ward until  the  period  of  sixty  days  has  elapsed,  but  still  offers  to  pay  the  tax  with  ten  per 
cent  addition,  and  the  costs  of  advertising,  on  or  before  the  day  of  sale,  he  is  entitled  to 
redeem.  If,  however,  he  delays  to  come  forward  until  the  propertj^  shall  have  been 
actually  sold,  he  cannot  redeem  without  paying  the  tax,  penalty,  all  costs,  and  fifteen  per 
cent  interest  from  the  date  of  the  President's  proclamation.  In  this  latter  case  the 
interest  is  to  be  reckoned  upon  the  tax  and  penalty  added  together. 
Very  respectfully, 

JOSEPH  J.   LEWIS,  Commissioner. 


255 

Messrs.  W.  J.  Boreman  and  John  Hawkhurst,  Esqs.,  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  Vir- 
ginia, "Washington,  D.  C. 

A  copy  of  these  instructions  was  forwarded  May  9,  1866,  to  the  Commissioners  for 
Texas. 
The  record  of  the  Commissioners  shows  that  collections  were  commenced  November  6, 

1865,  and  that  the  copy  of  the  instructions  quoted  above  was  received  by  them  May  28, 

1866,  and  that  they  at  once  began  to  comply  with  the  same.  No  attempt  has  been  made 
to  determine  what  part  of  the  penalty,  interest,  and  costs  charged  to  the  Commissioners 
in  their  account  was  collected  by  them  within  sixty  days  after  the  tax  was  fixed  and 
assessed.  It  is  believed,  however,  that  this  amount  can  be  ascertained  if  necessarj'-  from 
the  land  books  showing  the  dates  of  payment  of  the  several  assessments. 

On  September  24,  1870,  upon  the  application  of  a  land  owner  in  Texas  to  have  refunded 
certain  amounts  paid  by  him  in  addition  to  tax  as  penalty,  interest,  and  costs,  the  hon- 
orable First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  decided  that  the  amount  paid  as  penalty  could 
not  be  refunded,  saying:  "  Under  these  provisions  of  law  [Sections  1  and  3,  Act  of  June  7, 
1862],  my  opinion  is  that  the  fifty  per  cent  was  a  fixed  addition  to  the  tax,  to  be  paid  in  any 
event,  whether  payment  was  made  within  the  sixty  days  or  subsequently  to  their  expi- 
ration." 

It  is  understood  that  under  this  decision  a  considerable  number  of  claims  has  been 
presented  by  taxpayers  of  Texas  and  allowed  for  interest  and  costs  erroneously  collected 
by  the  Commissioners,  but  no  allowance  has  been  made  on  account  of  penalty  collected. 

In  the  case  of  De  Treville  vs.  Smalls,  98  U.  S.,  527,  October  Term,  1878.  the  question  whether 
by  the  Act  Of  June  7, 1862,  the  penalty  of  fifty  per  centum  of  the  tax  was  made  an  original 
charge  upon  the  lands,  and  to  be  collected  in  all  cases,  irrespective  of  allowance  of  any 
time  for  the  payment  of  the  tax,  seems  to  have  been  directly  before  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  and  it  was  decided  in  this  language: 

"One  other  assignment  only  remains.  It  is  that  the  Acts  of  Congress  were  unconstitu- 
tional, because  the  amount  of  the  direct  taxes  apportioned  to  the  State  of  South  Carolina 
Was  increased  by  the  addition  thereto  of  a  penalty  of  fifty  per  cent,  and  therefore  was  not 
in  proportion  to  the  census  or  enumeration  directed  to  be  taken  by  the  second  section  of 
the  first  article  of  the  Constitution. 

"  The  assignment  rests  upon  a  mistaken  construction  of  the  Acts  of  Congress.  It  is 
true  that  direct  taxes  must  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States  according  to  the 
population. 

"The  Acts  of  August  5,  1861,  June  7,  1862,  and  February  6,  1863,  did  so  apportion  the 
tax.  The  fifty  per  cent  penalty  was  no  part  of  it.  The  Act  of  Congress  of  1861,  which  levied 
the  tax,  provided  for  no  penalty,  except  for  failure  to  pay  it  when  it  was  due ;  and  the 
penalty  charged  by  the  Acts  of  1862  and  1863  was  also  for  "default  of  voluntary  payment 
in  due  time.  A  careful  reading  of  the  Acts  makes  this  very  plain.  Throughout  a  dis- 
tinction is  made  between  the  tax  and  the  added  penalty ;  it  is  recognized  in  the  first  sec- 
tion of  the  Act  of  1862,  in  the  second,  and  in  the  third,  as  well  as  elsewhere.  By  the  third 
section  the  owner  of  the  lots  or  parcels  of  land  was  allowed  to  pay  the  tax  charged  theroon 
{not  the  tax  and  penalty),  and  take  a  certificate  of  payment,  by  virtue  whereof  the  lands 
Would  be  discharged.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  maintained  that  the  tax  was  in  conflict 
With  the  Constitution." 

Attention  is  called  especially  to  this  subject,  because  nothing  similar  has  been  found 
in  connection  with  any  other  State,  and  it  is  clear  that  if  any  part  of  the  penalty,  as  well 
as  interest  and  costs,  has  been  erroneously  collected,  it  should  be  refunded  upon  claims 
properly  presented. 

UTAH  TERRITORY. 

The  whole  amount  of  the  tax  apportioned  to  the  Territory  of  Utah  remains  unpaid. 

VIRGINIA. 

In  the  adjustment  of  the  accounts  with  the  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  Virginia 
the  correct  principle  was  adopted  of  deducting  the  amount  of  tax  upon  the  lands  sold 
from  the  proceeds  of  sales  and  crediting  the  Commissioners  with  the  amount  of  the  tax 
upon  lands  bid  in  favor  of  the  United  States.  In  the  first  account,  however,  this  principle 
Was  not  carried  out  so  as  to  deduct  the  amount  of  tax  on  sales  to  private  parties  from  the 
tax  apportioned  to  the  State  in  order  to  find  the  balance  of  tax  uncollected  and  trans- 
ferred to  the  new  Board  of  Commissioners.  Land  Books  Nos.  1,  2,  and  3  for  Alexandria 
City  and  County  show  the  collections  of  tax  without  sale;  and  the  amount  of  tax  ($171  03) 
on  lands  sold  to  private  parties  is  in  addition  to  these  collections. 

The  proper  readjustment  of  this  account  will  therefore  show  a  balance  due  from  the 
Commissioners  to  the  United  States  of  the  sum  of  $171  03. 

The  error  in  this  account  affects  also  the  account  adjusted  with  the  second  Board  of 
Commissioners,  as  it  will  diminish  the  amount  of  uncollected  tax  transferred  to  them. 
In  the  adjustment  of  the  account  with  this  Board  the  gross  amount  of  the  tax  upon  the 
lands  sold  by  these  Commissioners  was  deducted  from  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  to  private 
parties  without  noting  that  part  of  this  amount  was  tax  upon  lands  bid  in  for  the  United 
States,  and  part  of  it  the  tax  upon  lands  the  sales  of  which  were  never  completed. 

These  two  sums  are  found  to  be  respectively  $155  96  and  $51  27.  The  Commissioners 
have  been  credited  with  the  sum  of  $112  56  "  as  amount  of  taxes  on  lands  sold  and  bid  in 
for  the  United  States." 


256 

The  several  errors  appearing  in  these  two  accounts  it  is  believed  will  be  corrected  upon 
readjustment  of  the  accounts  in  accordance  with  the  statements  of  the  same  as  made  by 
this  Commission. 

WASHINGTON  TEKRITORY. 

No  change  is  recommended  in  the  account  with  Washington  Territory. 

WISCONSIN. 

In  the  adjustment  of  the  account  with  the  State  of  Wisconsin  (Report  No.  10,  817)  it 
appears  that  the  sum  of  $262,309  55  was  allowed  as  cash  deposited,  and  fifteen  per  cent  on 
this  sum,  to  wit,  $39,346  43,  was  credited  as  commissions.  This  allowance  as  "  commis- 
sions "  was  made  under  Section  53  of  the  Act  of  August  5, 1861.  It  is  submitted,  however, 
that  the  law  contemplates  the  fifteen  per  cent  "deduction,"  as  it  is  therein  called,  in  the 
nature  of  discout  rather  than  of  percentage  on  the  payment  made,  and  that  the  credit  to 
which  a  State  is  entitled  upon  making  a  given  partial  pavment  within  the  proper  period, 
is  a  sum  which,  were  it  reduced  by  fifteen  per  cent,  would  leave  as  a  remainder  the  amount 
paid.  This  "  deduction  "  was  to  be  allowed,  under  the  law,  upon  the  payment  of  the  whole 
or  a  part  only  of  the  quota  apportioned  to  the  State,  or  upon  the  formal  and  proper  release 
of  any  liquidated  and  determined  claim  of  such  State  against  the  United  States.  An 
examination  of  the  accounts  adjusted  with  all  of  the  other  States  entitled  to  receive  the 
fifteen  i)er  cent  deduction  upon  payments  made  on  account  of  the  tax,  shows  that  the 
method  of  adjustment  here  pointed  out  in  relation  to  this  deduction  was  pursued,  and 
there  is  no  apparent  reason  why  that  method  was  not  observed  in  adjusting  the  account 
with  the  State  of  Wisconsin. 

It  is  recommended  that  the  further  sum  of  $6,943  49  be  credited  as  commissions  upon 
this  account  for  the  reasons  above  stated. 

In  the  adjustments  of  the  following  accounts,  all  of  which,  with  the  exception  of  the 
first,  which  is  a  war  claim,  are  for  swamp  land  indemnity,  these  amounts  have  been  found 
due  to  the  State  of  Wisconsin : 

No.  7,908,  Third  Auditor,  1875 $10,347  53 

No.  36.484,  Land  Office,  miscellaneous 8,489  57 

No.  36,557,  Land  Office,  miscellaneous $16,907  52 

No.  36,558,  Land  Office,  miscellaneous  .-. _      2,044  82 

No.  36,615,  Land  Office,  miscellaneous 7,490  03 

26,442  37 

No.  36,667.  Land  Office,  miscellaneous _ 53,408  93 

No.  37,837,  Land  Office,  miscellaneous 53,537  18 

Total-. $152,225  58 

This  sum  together  with  other  items  was  carried  to  the  credit  of  the  State  of  Wis- 
consin on  account  of  the  direct  tax  by  account  No.  34,698.  This  amount  was  due  to  the 
State  prior  to  the  last  day  of  June,  1862.  As  no  fifteen  per  cent  deduction  has  heretofore 
been  allowed  thereupon,  it  is  recommended  that  the  further  sum  of  $26,863  34  be  credited 
to  the  State. 

Under  adjustment  No.  35,468^  the  additional  sum  of  $25,748  16  has  been  found  due  to 
the  State  of  Wisconsin  for  five  per  cent  on  net  proceeds  of  sales  of  public  lands,  and 
ordered  by  the  honorable  First  Comptroller  to  be  carried  to  the  credit  of  the  State  on 
account  of  the  direct  tax. 

Should  the  credits  herein  suggested  be  allowed,  in  addition  to  the  amount  last  afore- 
said, the  balance  of  $51,145  56  due  from  the  State  on  account  of  the  direct  tax,  as  shown 
by  the  last  account  adjusted,  would  be  fully  paid  and  a  difference  be  found  to  the  credit 
of  the  State. 

The  following  statement  shows  the  balance  due  to  the  United  States  from  the  Direct 
Tax  Commissioners  for  the  insurrectionary  districts,  and  from  the  United  States  to  the 
Commissioners : 


257 


' 

Balance  due  United  States. 

Balance  due  Commissioners. 

COMMISSIONEKS  FOR — 

As  shown  by 

Adjustments 

Heretofore 

Made. 

As  shown  by 
Statements  of 
the  Accounts 
Suggested  by 
this  Commis- 
sion. 

As  shown  by 

Adjustments 

Heretofore 

Made. 

As  shown  by 
Statements  of 
the  Accounts 
Suggested  by 
this  Commis- 
sion. 

Alabama 

(*) 

$16,726  76 

4,907  73 

344  66 

14,025  58 

(X) 

iX) 

t$  16,726  76 

3,262  16 

344  66 

14,025  58 

iX) 
iX) 

Georgia 

Louisiana 

Mississippi - - 

South  Carolina 

$248  00 
255  18 

W.  R.  Cloutman,  Collector  Internal  Rev- 
enue, successor  to  Commissioners  

§$255  18 

A.  J.   Ransier,  Collector  Internal  Rev- 
enue successor  to  Commissioners 

35  00 

iX) 

50,464  83 

C) 

iX) 

35  00 

iX) 

50,464  83 

171  03 

Tennessee 

Texas. -_1 

Virginia : 
First  Board 

. 

Second  Board 

171  03 

*  No  collections. 

f  Allowance  is  recommended  by  the  Commission  of  §8,842  48  of  this  amount. 

T  Balanced. 

I  Suspended. 


The  following  statement  exhibits  the  amounts  of  the  direct  tax  which  are  uncollected 
at  this  date  in  the  several  States  and  Territories : 


States  and  Territories. 


Amount  Due, 
as  found  by 
this  Commis- 
sion. 


Amount  Due, 
Secretary's 
Statement. 


Amount  Due, 

Statement  of 

Commissioner 

of  Internal 

Revenue. 


Alabama 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Dakota 

Morida 

Georgia 

Louisiana 

Mississippi 

North  Carolina 
South  Carolina 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah.. 

Virginia 

"Washington --. 
Wisconsin 


$511,028  30 

107,184  82 

(*) 
715  37 

(*) 

72,762  37 

466,384  44 

71,385  83 

302,046  21 

198,742  06 

141,174  31 

277,493  52 

174,265  16 

26,982  00 

286,662  93 

3,487  17 

(*) 


$520,821  87 

77,803  82 

6.597  54 

21,388  44 

3,241  33 

33,992  86 

512,959  58 

117,371  55 

338,342  10 

190,000  22 

(X) 

281,775  94 

225,098  61 

26,982  00 

213,501  30 

3,487  17 

51,145  56 


$529,313  33 

107,686  72 

{*) 

21,388  44 
3,241  33 

72,756  26 
501,939  86 

71,385  83 
343,500  12 
198,742  06 
152,781  35 
287,963  43 
174,265  16 

26,982  00 

286,499  37 

3,487  17 

51,145  56 


*  Balanced. 

t  See  statement  with  regard  to  Louisiana,  ante. 

X  Overpaid  by  $14,390  63. 


The  following  remarks  are  to  be  taken  in  connection  with  this  statement : 
The  "  amount  due,  as  found  by  this  Commission,"  is  based  upon  the  statements  of  the 
accounts  of  the  Commissioners  for  the  several  States  as  herein  presented  for  readjust- 
ment and  upon  the  allowances  to  be  made  of  the  several  sums  recommended.  Should 
any  of  the  accounts  not  be  readjusted  as  suggested,  or  any  of  the  credits  recommended 
not  be  allowed,  the  balances  found  due  by  the  Commission  will  be  in  so  far  changed. 


258 

They  would  likewise  be  affected  by  anv  amounts  which  have  been,  or  may  hereafter  be, 
refunded  as  tax  overpaid  or  erroneously  paid. 

The  "amounts  due.  Secretary's  statement,"  is  taken  from  the  statement  of  the  honora- 
ble Secretary  of  the  Treasurj^,  accompanying  his  letter  of  March  29,  1884,  and  printed  in 
Senate  Ex.  Doc.  No.  142,  first  session,  Forty-eighth  Congress.  In  a  previous  part  of  this 
report  the  source  of  this  statement  is  mentioned,  and  the  cause  of  certain  inaccuracies 
therein  is  pointed  out. 

The  "  amount  due,  statement  of  Commissioner  of  Internal  Kevenue,"  is  taken  from  the 
annual  report  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 1885.  This  statement  appears  to  have 
been  compiled  from  the  books  of  the  office  of  the  First  Comptroller,  showing  the  accounts 
as  adjusted  with  the  States  and  the  several  Boards  of  Commissioners.  The  amounts  of 
tax  uncollected  in  the  "insurrectionary  districts''  are  taken  from  the  accounts  with  the 
Commissioners  for  those  districts,  as  accounts  with  the  districts  or  States  have  not  yet 
been  adjusted,  except  to  charge  them  with  the  quotas  of  the  direct  tax  apportioned  by  the 
Act  of  August  5, 1861. 

The  records  of  the  office  of  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  show  that  accounts 
were  certified  May  29,  1868,  with  all  of  the  States  (except  West  Virginia,  which  was  subse- 
quently stated),  charging  them  with  the  quotas  of  the  direct  tax  apportioned  to  them, 
respectively,  binder  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861.  It  is  regarded  as  probable  that  at  that  time 
a  formal  decision  was  rendered  by  the  honorable  First  Comptroller  as  to  the  legal  liability 
of  the  States  for  this  tax,  but,  if  so,  no  record  of  this  decision  can  now  be  found.  At  the 
present  time  there  seems  to  be  great  conflict  of  opinion  upon  this  subject  among  those 
who  have  been  called  upon  to  consider  the  question;  and  a  reference  to  the  debates  in 
both  branches  of  Congress  when  the  original  Act  of  1861  was  under  consideration,  does; 
not  serve  to  clear  away  the  doubt.  It  is  also  found  that  the  decisions  of  the  incumbents 
of  the  office  of  First  Comptroller  have  not  been  uniform.  The  States  having  been  charged 
by  Comptroller  Tayler  (in  1868),  Comptroller  Lawrence  (in  1883),  and  Durham  (in  1885),  in 
decisions  applying  moneys  due  to  several  of  the  States  as  offsets  upon  the  amounts  of  the 
direct  tax  apportioned  to  these  States,  recognized  the  charges  as  at  least  binding  upon 
them  as  precedents ;  while  Comptroller  Porter  (in  1879)  decided  that  the  States  were  not 
liable  for  the  direct  tax,  but  that  the  same  was  due  from  the  land  owners  in  the  several 
States,  and,  therefore,  that  a  sum  appropriated  to  one  of  the  States  (Georgia)  should  not 
be  credited  upon  the  direct  tax  "  as  upon  a  debt  owing  by  that  State  to  the  United  States." 
This  decision,  however,  does  not  appear  to  have  been  followed,  as  the  practice  of  the  office 
of  the  First  Comptroller  has  been  to  credit  sums  due  to  the  States  upon  unpaid  balances 
of  the  direct  tax  charged  to  the  States. 

This  question  of  the  liability  of  the  States  for  the  direct  tax,  it  is  believed,  has  never 
directly  come  before  any  of  the  United  States  Courts. 

The  unanimous  opinion  of  this  Commission  is  that  the  States  are  not  liable  in  their  cor- 
porate capacities  for  the  amounts  of  the  direct  tax  apportioned  to  them,  respectively.  In 
view  of  the  fact,  however,  that  the  States  have  been  charged  upon  the  books  of  the  Treas- 
ury Department  with  these  amounts,  and  that  the  decision  making  the  charge  governs 
the  action  of  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Department  until  reversed  by  proper  authority, 
it  is  considered  by  a  majority  of  this  Commission  that  the  accounts  adjusted,  and  to  be 
adjusted,  as  herein  recommended,  exhibit  the  balances  now  due  from  the  States. 

These  balances,  given  in  a  preceding  table,  are  for  convenience  here  repeated: 


States  and  Territories. 

Amounts  Due. 

States  and  Territories. 

Amounts  Due. 

Alabama    

$511,028  30 

107,184  82 

715  37 

72,762  37 

466,384  44 

71,385  83 

302,046  21 

$198,742  06 
141,174  31 

Arkansas  .  .     _. .  _ 

South  Carolina 

Colorado 

Tennessee 

277,493  52 
174,265  16 

Florida 

Texas 

Georgia 

Utah  Territory 

26,982  00 
286,662  93 

Louisiana. 

Virginia   . 

Mississippi 

Washington  Territory 

3,487  17 

In  the  case  of  the  "insurrectionary  districts,"  the  amounts  reported  as  due  are  the  dif- 
ferences between  the  quotas  and  the  tax  collected,  as  shown  by  the  several  accounts 
adjusted  and  recommended  to  be  readjusted  with  the  Commissioners  for  the  States, 
diminished  by  any  sums  due  the  States  that  have  been,  or  are  yet  to  be,  offset  against  the 
tax  apportioned  to  the  States  resx^ectively. 

The  records  of  the  office  of  the  First  Comptroller  show  that  each  of  the  States  com- 
posing the  "insurrectionary  districts "  was  charged  with  the  amount  of  the  direct  tax 
apportioned  to  it,  and  that  the  same  amount  was  charged  to  the  direct  tax  Commissioners 
for  that  State.  Thus  the  anomaly  is  presented  of  two  persons,  as  it  were,  being  charged 
with  the  same  debt.  It  is  considered,  however,  that  the  two  accounts  are  to  be  taken 
together  also  upon  their  credit  sides.  When  the  amounts  are  once  fixed  which  are  to  con- 
stitute the  entries  in  the  account  against  the  State  it  is  believed  that  the  ordinary  princi- 
ples of  bookkeeping  in  the  department  will  indicate  how  these  entries  are  to  be  made. 

If  it  be  assumed  that  the  decision  charging  each  of  the  States  with  its  proportion  of  the 


259 

tax  was  correct,  then  the  account  of  the  Commissioners  for  that  State,  when  correctly 
adjusted,  will  form  the  proijer  basis  for  the  credit  to  be  given  in  the  account  with  the  State. 

The  question  is  then  presented  what  item  or  items  fixed  by  the  Commissioners'  account 
is  or  are  proper  credits  to  the  State  ? 

This  Commission  is  divided  upon  this  question.  It  is  contended  by  one  member,  who 
submits  his  views  in  a  separate  report,  that  each  State  is  entitled  to  credit  upon  the  quota 
of  the  tax  apportioned  to  it  not  only  for  the  amount  of  the  tax  collected,  but  also  for  the 
sums  collected  as  penal tj'^,  interest,  costs,  and  excess.  Two  of  the  members  are  of  opinion 
that  each  State  is  entitled  to  credit,  by  transfer  from  the  correctly  adjusted  account  of  the 
Commissioners  for  the  State,  for  the  amount  which  is  shown  to  have  been  collected  as  tax 
and  for  that  only,  this  amount  to  be  deducted  from  the  tax  apportioned  to  the  State  in 
order  to  determine  the  balance  due ;  and  they  submit  that  the  proper  credit  upon  lax 
charged  is  tax  collected,  and  that  the  items  of  penalty,  interest,  and  costs,  are  expenses 
incurred  by  reason  of  default  in  the  payment  of  the  tax  within  the  time  prescribed  by 
law,  and  are  in  addition  to  the  tax  imposed  by  the  law. 

In  the  accounts  adjusted  with  the  Commissioners  for  several  of  the  States,  more  than 
three  Commissioners  have  been  charged.  Under  the  law  only  three  Commissioners  could 
lawfully  be  acting  at  one  time,  and  when  the  accounts  were  adjusted  they  should  have 
been  divided  at  the  points  of  time  when  the  Boards  of  Commissioners  were  changed, 
either  by  death,  resignation,  or  removal  of  one  or  more  members.  It  seems  that  in  these 
cases  the  Commissioners,  upon  the  retirement  of  one  of  their  number  and  the  appoint- 
ment of  his  successor,  did  not  make  a  pause  in  their  collections  and  accounts  so  as  to 
show  where  one  Board  of  Commissioners  ceased  and  the  other  began  operations,  and 
therefore  the  accounts  have  been  stated  with  more  than  three  Commissioners.  This  fact 
may  stand  in  the  way  of  determining  the  legal  liability  of  the  respective  Commissioners 
for  balances  found  due  to  the  United  States,  but  it  is  recommended  that  the  propriety  of 
instituting  suits  upon  the  bonds  of  the  Commissioners  to  recover  the  balances  due  be  con- 
sidered. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  H.  LICHLITER. 
V.  N.  STILES. 

I  concur  in  the  above  report,  except  in  so  far  as  the  same  may  conflict  with  my  separate 
opinion  herewith  filed. 

Very  respectfully, 

F.  WERBER,  Jr. 
Hon.  Daniel  Manning,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Treasury  Department,  Washington,  D.  C,  ) 
February  20,  1886.         j 

Sir:  I  am  unable  to  concur  in  the  method  of  adjustment  of  the  uncollected  tax  in 
the  insurrectionary  districts  as  set  forth  by  the  majorit;^  of  the  Commission  heretofore 
appointed  by  your  letter  of  December  10,  1885,  "  to  make  investigation  into  the  direct  tax 
accounts,"  etc. ;  and  I  respectfully  suggest  as  a  substitute  therefor  the  following  proposi- 
tion: 

The  tax  uncollected  and  due  by  the  State  is  the  quota  as  originally  apportioned  under 
Section  8  of  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  reduced  by  the  amount  of  all  collections  in  such  State 
of  tax,  penalty,  interest,  costs,  and  excess,  whether  collected  before  sale  and  shown  by  the 
adjustment  of  the  accounts  with  the  Commissioners,  or  collected  by  sale  and  shown  by 
the  records  in  this  Department. 

It  must  be  observed  that  in  the  majority  report  the  balance  due  by  each  of  the  States 
lately  in  insurrection  has  been  ascertained  by  deducting  from  the  original  quota  appor- 
tioned to  such  State  the  amount  of  tax  alone  collected  therein,  without  considering  in  any 
manner  the  collection  of  penalty,  interests,  costs,  or  excesses,  and  that  all  the  tables  accom- 
panying that  report  are  made  up  on  that  basis. 

It  is  respectfully  suggested  that  the  province  of  this  Commission  is  to  examine  into  the 
matters  connected  with  the  direct  tax,  not  as  statesmen  to  suggest  what  might  be  best, 
nor  as  judges  to  expound  the  various  laws  on  this  subject,  but  rather  as  accountants  of 
the  Executive  Department,  whose  duty  it  is  to  apply  to  the  mathematical  problems  sub- 
mitted the  law  as  it  has  been  held  to  be  by  those  whose  duty  it  is  to  construe  it,  and  with 
all  the  limitations  and  restrictions  which  may  legitimately  follow  such  rulings. 

The  various  decisions  of  the  honorable  First  Comptroller  upon  the  laws  applicable 
hereto  furnish  a  guide  which  cannot  be  ignored  by  the  accountants  of  this  Department. 

The  Hon.  R.  W.  Tayler,  then  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  on  May  29,  1868,  held 
that  the  direct  tax  was  a  debt  due  by  the  several  States  as  bodies  corporate,  and  accord- 
ingly charged  them  therewith ;  the  records  of  this  Department  all  announce  the  direct 
tax  as  a  State's  debt;  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  tacitly  acknowledges  it  when  in  his 
instructions  he  directs  that  this  Commission  "  examine  into  *  *  *  the  accounts  *  *  * 
between  the  United  States  and  all  the  States  and  Territories  concerned." 

The  direct  tax  is,  therefore,  so  far  as  the  investigation  of  this  commission  can  go,  a  debt 
due  by  the  several  States  as  corporations. 

It  musit  be  acknowledged  that  this  construction  of  the  law  appears  not  to  conform  to 
the  intention  of  the  acts  upon  this  subject;  but  the  decision  fixing  it  as  a  State  debt  has 
such  force  in  the  Treasury  Department  as  to  preclude  any  other  view  of  the  direct  tax 


260 

than  that  of  a  debt  due  by  the  State ;  and  accepting  this  doctrine  the  conclusions  herein 
set  forth  are  believed  to  be  those  which  logically  follow. 

If  the  State  owes  the  debt,  the  land  owner  does  not  owe  it.  He  can  then  be  held  respon- 
sible directly  to  the  General  Government  for  no  part  of  it.  His  obligation  is  to  his  State, 
and  he  can  be  reached  in  no  other  manner  than  indirectly  through  his  State,  and  under 
State  laws. 

The  rules  of  construction  require  that  all  laws  imposing  fines,  forfeitures,  or  penalties 
shall  be  construed  strictly  and  most  strongly  against  the  power  making  it.  There  is  in 
the  Act  in  question  a  specific  amount  set  forth  which  shall  constitute  the  debt  of  each 
State ;  but  there  is  no  further  provision  in  the  law  for  penalty,  cost,  interest,  or  excess 
against  the  State.  None  can  then  be  exacted  or  required,  nor  can  "  the  State  be  substituted 
for  the  land  owner,"  nor  "  subjected  to  any  penalties  in  terms  imposed  on  him  for  failure  to 
pay"  a  debt  which  is  not  his.  The  provisons  of  the  Act  authorizing  penalty,  interest,  cost, 
and  forfeiture  against  the  individual  land  owner  must  be  regarded  rather  as  an  attempt 
upon  the  part  of  the  Government  to  collect  this  tax  expeditiously,  and  with  the  least 
expense  possible,  collecting  more  than  his  proportion  from  one  and  less  than  his  from 
another  land  owner,  leaving  him  who  has  contributed  too  much  to  his  recourse  upon  his 
State  or  upon  his  neighboring  land  owner  who  has  contributed  too  little. 

The  position  taken  that  the  charges  against  the  several  States,  as  entered  upon  the  books 
of  this  Department,  indicate  only  that  so  much  money  is  to  come  from  the  State,  in  a 
geographical  or  territorial  sense,  cannot  be  maintained  in  the  Treasury  Department,  because 
(1)  the  very  fact  of  charging  the  State  indicates  that  the  State  owes  the  debt,  which  it  can 
do  only  in  its  corporate  capacity;  and  (2)  this  very  question  has  been  decided,  first  by 
Comptroller  Tayler,  and  afterwards  reviewed  by  Comptroller  William  Lawrence  in  the 
Georgia  case.    (See  4  Law.  Dec,  p.  354,  et  seq.) 

The  Commission  is  now  estopped  from  treating  the  direct  tax  in  any  other  light  than  as 
a  debt  due  from  the  State  in  its  corporate  capacity;  and  the  amount  of  the  State's  obliga- 
tion is  adjudicated  under  the  decision  of  the  honorable  First  Comptroller  of  May  29, 1868, 
as  the  quota  alone,  as  set  forth  in  Section  8,  Act  of  August  5,  1861. 

With  what  shall  the  State  be  now  credited  ? 

The  Government  has  received  no  payment  directly  from  the  State;  but  whatever  sum 
has  been  received  has  been  paid  by  the  land  owners  of  such  State,  through  the  Commis- 
sioners, or  has  been  realized  from  the  sale  of  lands  belonging,  not  to  the  State,  but  to  the 
citizen.    But  the  citizen  owed  no  debt. 

Two  views  may  be  here  presented.  First,  that  the  United  States  has  compelled  the  land 
owner  to  pay  a  debt  which  he  does  not  owe.  The  Government  would  then  have  acted  in 
tort  and  could  apply  no  part  of  the  proceeds  to  the  liquidation  of  the  State's  debt. 

The  other,  and  perhaps  the  proper  view,  is  that  the  land  owner  has  simply  contributed 
from  his  individual  means  to  pay,  jfwo  tanto,  the  State's  debt. 

The  sum  which  he  has  paid,  or  which  has  been  derived  from  the  sale  of  property,  may 
be  considered  as  composed  of  two  parts : 

(1)  That  portion  which  the  United  States  recognizes  as  erroneously^  exacted  of  him  by 
the  Tax  Commissioners,  and  including  the  surplus  over  tax,  penalties,  interest,  costs,  etc., 
in  cases  of  sales,  and  which  the  Government  has  refunded,  or  is  now  ready  to  repay  to 
the  land  owners  from  whom  it  was  received;  and, 

(2)  That  part,  including  tax,  penalty,  interest,  cost,  etc.,  which  the  Government  does  not 
propose  to  refund  to  him,  but  for  the  repayment  of  which  he  must  look  to  his  State,  the 
debtor  for  whom  he  made  the  payment. 

All  sums  of  this  second  class,  which  the  United  States  has  received,  must  be  applied  to 
the  extinguishment,  pro  tanto,  of  the  State's  debt.  To  what  other  account  can  it  be  applied  ? 
What  right  has  the  United  States  to  it  except  for  that  purpose  ?  It  becomes  now  simply 
so  much  money  had  and  received  bj^  the  United  States  for  the  use  of  the  State,  and  must 
be  applied  as  a  whole  to  the  credit  of  the  State,  against  which  there  are  penalties,  interest, 
or  cost,  regardless  of  whether  it  was  denominated  as  against  the  land  owner  as  a  tax,  pen- 
alty, interest,  cost,  excess,  or  by  any  name  whatsoever. 

It  has  been  suggested,  first,  that  the  State  may  be  regarded  as  having  committed  the 
payment  of  this  tax  to  its  citizens  as  its  agents ;  and  second,  that  the  citizens  are  only  the 
sureties  for  the  payment  of  this  debt.  •  In  either  of  these  cases  the  debtor,  the  State,  must 
have  credit  on  its  account,  and  it  owes  nothing  but  the  quota,  for  all  that  has  been  paid 
by  its  agents  or  its  sureties;  and  as  between  creditor  and  surety,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  creditor  has  the  right  to  require  all  or  any  portion  of  the  debt  from  any  surety, 
leaving  him  to  his  remedies  against  his  principal  debtor  or  his  co-sureties  for  equity  and 
equality. 

Again,  it  has  been  suggested  to  charge  the  State  with  all  the  items  which  are  properly 
charged  against  the  Commissioners,  and  the  result  reached  by  the  majority  of  this  Com- 
mission would  be  obtained.  Of  course,  if  the  same  account  is  stated  with  two  different 
persons  in  the  same  language,  in  the  same  figures,  and  in  the  same  manner,  the  same 
result  must  follow. 

But  this  involves  the  idea  that  the  liability  of  the  two  persons  are  identical. 

The  Commissioners  have  been  properly  charged  with  the  monej^s  they  received  from  all 
sources.  How  can  the  fact  of  their  having  sold  a  tract  of  land,  or  a  lot  of  office  furniture, 
the  property  of  the  United  States,  increase  the  State's  liability  ?  Yet  this  would  be  the 
result  were  this  plan  of  bookkeeping  adopted. 

The  State  can  be  charged  with  the  quota  apportioned  under  the  Act  alone. 

The  provisions  of  the  Act  of  June  7,  1862,  in  so  far  as  they  prescribe  different  sums  for 


261 

penalties,  interest,  and  cost  for  a  portion  of  the  United  States  from  those  prescribed  under 
the  previous  Act  for  the  remainder  of  the  States,  would,  under  any  other  views  than  the 
plan  herein  suggested,  be  rendered  unconstitutional,  null,  and  void  under  Sections  2  and 
8,  Article  1,  Constitution.  Because,  should  one  State  assume  and  pay  the  tax,  as  provided 
under  the  law,  and  another  State  not  so  assume  and  pay  it,  should  penalties,  interest, 
costs,  and  excess  be  exacted  of  the  latter  and  not  of  the  former  State,  then  that  propor- 
tion which  the  Constitution  requires  between  the  States'  taxes  would  no  longer  exist,  and 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  would  be  defeated. 

The  Government  did  not  expect  to  recover  the  full  sum  named  in  the  Act.  This  is 
evident,  when  it  is  remembered  that  $20,000,000  was  levied  and  apportioned  to  the  several 
States  and  Territories,  out  of,  and  not  in  addition  to,  which  should  come  the  costs. 

Of  the  original  sum,  the  tJnited  States  expected  to  recover  no  more  than  eighty-five  per 
cent,  or  $17,000,000  net ;  yet,  were  costs,  penalties,  interest,  and  forfeitures,  as  provided, 
against  the  citizen  allowed  to  increase  the  quota  of  the  State,  a  sum  greatly  exceeding 
even  $30,000,000  might  be  required  to  pay  a  debt  of  only  $20,000,000. 

No  figures  are  herein  set  forth  showing  the  amounts  of  the  several  items  for  which  it  is 
suggested  that  the  States  have  further  credit,  for  the  reason  that  no  such  investigation 
has  been  undertaken  by  the  Commission ;  and  any  figures  which  might  be  herein  suggested, 
being  ex  parte,  might  liot  be  accepted  as  correct. 

Should  this  method  of  adjustment  be  accepted,  however,  the  records  in  this  Department 
furnish  ready  access  to  all  such  sums  as  may  be  required  for  this  purpose. 

It  appears  that,  in  perhaps  all  the  States  in  which  the  direct  tax  was  collected  through 
Commissioners,  very  great  irregularities  have  been  committed  in  assessing,  collecting,  and 
in  accounting  for  the  proceeds  of  this  direct  tax  by  the  Direct  Tax  Commissioners. 

The  majority  of  this  Commission  has  chosen  not  to  make  a  report  upon  this  matter.  I 
desire,  however,  to  call  to  the  attention  of  the  Department  the  existence  of  these  irregular- 
ities ;  and,  in  order  to  do  so,  I  will  use  the  records  of  the  Commissioners  of  South  Caro- 
lina, not  because  any  greater  irregularities  are  thought  to  exist  there  than  elsewhere,  but 
because  that  record' is,  perhaps,  more  complete  than  any  other,  and  because  I  am  more 
familiar  with  the  laws  of  taxation  of  that  State  than  with  those  of  the  other  States. 

The  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  of  South  Carolina,  in  their  records,  admit  having 
received  substantially  the  information  which  was  necessary  in  order  to  fix  the  tax  cor- 
rectly under  the  law.  (See  report  of  the  Commissioners,  dated  January  1, 1863,  as  recorded 
in  Book  of  Records,  at  pages  50,  et  seq.) 

It  appears  from  the  laws  of  this  State,  as  well  as  from  the  annual  report  of  the  Comp- 
troller-General of  South  Carolina  for  I860,  that  at  the  time  of  the  collection  of  the  direct 
tax  there  was  in  force  here  a  system  of  taxation  brought  down  from  the  eighteenth 
century,  as  slightly  modified  under  the  Act  of  1815,  whereby  all  lands  were  divided  into 
ten  different  classes,  and  assessed  for  taxation  at  sums  fixed  for  each  class,  but  varying 
with  the  different  classes  at  from  twenty  cents  to  $26  per  acre. 

These  classes  were  arranged  with  reference  to  the  character  of  the  timber  growing  upon 
the  lands  half  a  century  prior  to  the  collection  of  the  direct  tax,  and  the  assessed  value 
thereupon  represented  neither  the  actual  cash  value  nor  the  relative  values  of  the 
lands  of  this  State  at  that  time. 

For  taxation  the  State  was  divided  under  State  laws  into  the  "  upper  division ''  and  the 
"lower  division,"  in  the  latter  of  which  alone  was  the  direct  tax  attempted  to  be  levied 
and  collected. 

In  this  lower  division  there  were,  under  State  assessment,  lands  in  each  of  the  ten 
classes,  and  assessed  at  each  of  the  ten  different  valuations,  yet  the  Direct  Tax  Commis- 
sioners, in  assessing  the  lands  here,  adopted  only  two  of  the  ten  valuations  it  seems,  viz.: 
20  cents  on  one  class  and  $4  6n  all  other  classes  of  lands,  a  few  lots  only  being  assessed  at 
the  former  valuation,  while  by  far  the  greater  portion  of  the  lands  were  assessed  at  $4 
per  acre.  Nor  was  regard  had'  apparently  to  the  improvements  upon  or  the  proximity  to 
or  remoteness  from  markets,  or  the  actual  cash  value  of  the  lands. 

The  Commissioners  fixed  the  entire  taxable  property  of  the  State  at  $30,833,322  lOj*^,  and 
still  imposed  upon  the  several  parishes  and  districts  constituting  the  "lower  division" 
of  the  State  for  taxation  an  aggregate  assessed  valuation  of  $33,750,000,  or  nearly  $3,000,000 
more  than  the  entire  estimate  for  the  State,  leaving  unassessed  the  upper  division,  which, 
under  State  law,  constituted  more  than  one  fourth  the  taxable  value  or  lands  in  the  State, 
and  about  three  fourths  the  State's  area. 

The  Commissioners  imposed  upon  farming  lands — all  property  not  in  towns,  etc. —  a  tax 
of  "$2  ad  valorem  for  each  $100  valuation," and  '-upon  the  city, town, village,  and  borough 
lots  the  sum  of  80  cents  ad  valorem  on  each  $100  of  valuation."  This  has  very  recently 
been  the  subject  of  judicial  inquirj'  before  the  Court  of  Claims,  where  it  has  been  held 
that  the  assessment  should  have  been  the  same  for  all  classes  of  property,  and  that  any 
assessment  in  excess  of  such  a  levy  is  erroneous,  and  the  amounts  collected  thereunder 
in  excess  of  the  proper  sums  should  be  refunded  to  the  land  owners  paying  the  same. 
It  will  be  readily  seen  that  inasmuch  as  the  item  "tax  uncollected"  has  been  deduced 
from  the  amount  of  tax  collected  from  the  land  owner,  all  amounts  erroneously  collected 
and  which  must  be  refunded  under  this  or  similar  decisions,  will  affect  the  "liability  of 
the  State  to  whatever  extent  the  items  applicable  to  the  payment  of  the  State's  debt  may 
be  refunded. 

The  report  of  the  Comptroller  General  of  South  Carolina  for  I860,  adding  thereto  the 
assessment  for  Union  County  for  the  next  fiscal  year,  which  is  substantially  correct,  as  no 
return  for  this  county  seems  to  have  been  received  or  incorporated  in  the  first  of  the  said 


262 

reports,  shows  as  taxable  real  estate  in  the  entire  State  $41,924,074,  of  which  $30,090,507  was 
in  the  "  lower  division."  Then  if  $41,924,074  should  pay  $363,570  07,  the  quota  of  the  State, 
$30,090,507  should  pay  $260,948  53.  But  upon  this  lower  division  the  Commissioners  levied 
$348,283  34,  or  $87,334  81  more  than  its  proportion.  Should  the  rate  of  taxation  have  been 
uniform,  each  land  owner  has  been  compelled  to  pay  33.8  per  cent  more  than  could  be 
imposed  under  the  law. 

Ihe  same  figures  will  show  that  the  assessment  for  this  State  should  have  been  86  cents 
(about)  on  each  $100  valuation.  Town  proi)erty  has  then  paid  6  cents  too  little,  and 
country  property  $1  14  too  much  on  each  $100  valuation. 

It  is  probable  that  there  will  yet  be  presented  numerous  claims  for  refunding  amounts 
erroneously  collected,  both  here  and  in  other  States.  Each  sum  refunded,  and  which  was 
heretofore  credited  to  the  State  on  account  of  tax  will  necessarily  affect  the  amount  due 
from  the  State.    And  hence  the  necessity  of  the  observations  upon  this  point. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

F.  WERBER,  Jr. 

Hon.  Daniel  Manning,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


APPENDIX   SHOWING  ACCOUNTS  AS   ADJUSTED 

BY  THIS  COMMISSION. 


AND  AS  RECOMMENDED 


Dr. 

Cr. 

State  of  Alabama— 

To  direct  tax,  per  report  No.  55,622.. 

$529,313  33 

State  of  Arkansas— 

To  direct  tax,  per  report  No.  55,627 -.. -.. 

$261,886  00 

State  of  California— 

To  direct  tax  as  per  report  No  55  633 

$254,538  67 

To  cash,  per  report  No.  10,813      ..'- 

$247,445  41 

By  cash,  per  report  No  39  283 

495  72 

By  amount  credited  under  Deficiency  Act  of  July  7,  1884.. 

38,180  80 

To  cash  paid  the  Governor. 

31,583  26 

. 

$286,121  93 

$286,121  93 

Territory  of  Colorado— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,624.. 

$22,905  33 

By  cash  deposited,  report  No.  34,699  

$1,516  89 

By  balance  due  United  States 

21,388  44 

To  balance 

$22,905  33 
21,388  44 

$22,905  33 

State  of  Connecticut — 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55  488 

$308,214  00 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,725 

$261,981  90 

By  fifteen  per  cent  commissions 

46,232  10 

$308,214  00 

$308,214  00 

Territory  of  Dakota— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,625... 

$3,241  33 

State  of  Delaware— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55  490 

$74,683  33 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,861 

$68,136  35 

Bv  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  34,695 

2,635  67 

By  amount  released  under  compromise               

3,911  31 

$74,683  33 

74,683  33 

District  of  Columbia— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,636 

$49,437  33 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,799 

$49,437  33 

$49,437  33 

$49,437  33 

State  of  Florida— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,628 

$77,522  67 

State  of  Georgia— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,448 

$584,367  33 

.       _ 

State  of  Illinois— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,567 

$1,146,551  33 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,742 ..  . 

$974,568  03 

B V  fifteen  per  cent  commissions 

171,982  70 

$1,146,551  33 

$1,146,551  33 

263 


Appendix  showing  Accounts  as  Adjusted^  etc. — Continued. 


Dr. 


Cr. 


State  of  Indiana— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,556 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  11,006. 
B3^  fifteen  per  cent  commissions _ 


$904,875  33 


$769,144  03 
135,731  30 


State  of  Iowa — 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,629 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,754. 
By  fifteen  per  cent  commissions 


$904,875  33 


$904,875  33 


$452,088  00 


$384,274  80 
67,813  20 


State  of  Kansas — 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,626 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,864 

By  cash,  per  report  No.  32,388 

Bv  reimbursement  of  15  per  cent  commissions  under  Act 

of  Augusts,  1882... 

To  cash  paid  State 


State  of  Kentucky— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,562 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,798. 
By  15  per  cent  commissions 


State  of  Louisiana— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,565 

State  of  Maine 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,484 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,710. 

By  15  per  cent  commissions _ 


State  of  Maryland 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,450 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,741. 
By  15  per  cent  commissions 


State  of  Massachusetts — 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,442 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,723. 
By  15  per  cent  commissions 


State  of  Michigan — 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,634. .. 
By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,1 


By  15  per  cent  commissions 


State  of  Minnesota— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,611 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  11,013. 
By  15  per  cent  commissions 


State  of  Mississippi— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,630 

State  of  Missouri— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,635 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,771. 

By  15  per  cent  commissions 


$452,088  00 


$452,088  00 


$71,743  33 


$9,360  82 
62,382  51 

10,761  50 


10,761  50 


$82,504  83 


$82,504  83 


$713,695  33 


$606,641  03 
107,054  30 


$713,695  33 


$713,695  33 


$385,886  67 


$420,826  00 


$357,702  10 
63,123  90 


$420,826  00 


$420,826  00 


$436,823  33 


$371,299  83 
65,523  50 


$436,823  33 


$436,823  33 


$824,581  33 


$700,894  14 
123,687  19 


$824,581  33 


$824,581  33 


$501,763  33 


$426,498  83 
75,264  50 


$501,763  33 


$501,763  33 


;,524  00 


$92,245  40 
16,278  60 


$108,524  00 


$108,524  00 


$413,084  67 


$761,127  33 


$646,958  23 
114,169  10 


$761,127  33 


$761,127  33 


264 


Appendix  showing  Accounts  as  Adjusted,  etc. — Continued. 


Dr, 


Cr. 


Territory  of  Nebraska — 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,609 

By  cash  deposited 

By  amount  credited  under  Act  of  August  7, 1882. 


$19,312  00 


Territory  of  Nevada— , 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,623 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,773 

By  cash,  as  per  report  No.  34,701 

By  reimbursement  of  15  per  cent  under  Act  of  July 
To  cash  paid  State .-. 


119,312  00 


$4,592  67 


1884. 


State  of  New  Hampshire — 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,485 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,711. 
By  15  per  cent  commissions 


State  of  New  Jersey — 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,491. 

By  cash  deposited 

By  15  per  cent  commissions 


Territory  of  New  Mexico — 

To  d'irect  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,612 

By  amount  credited  under  Act  of  July  1,  1862 


State  of  New  York— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,489 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,814. 

By  commissions- 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  18,225. 
B}^  balance  of  commissions 


State  of  North  Carolina — 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,446 

State  of  Ohio — 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,563 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,770. 

By  15  per  cent  commissions 


State  of  Oregon — 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,610 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  34,697. 
By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  39,284. 
By  amount  credited  by  Act  of  July  7,  1884. 
To  cash  paid  State 


State  of  Pennsylvania— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,487. 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,740. 
By  commissions 


State  of  Rhode  Island — 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,451 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,724. 
By  15  per  cent  commissions  . 


90 


$5,281  57 


$218,406  67 


$218,406  67 


$450,134  00 


$450,134  00 


$62,648  00 


$62,648  00 


$2,603,918  67 


$2,603,918  67 


$576,194  67 


$4,281  60 
15,030  40 


$19,312  00 


$4,592  33 
34 

688  90 


$5,281  57 


$185,645  67 
32,761  00 


$218,406  67 


*$382,614  83 
t67,519  17 

$450,134  00 


$62,648  00 


}2,648  00 


$2,132,100  61 

319,815  09 

81,230  25 

70,772  72 


$2,603,918  61 


$1,567,194  67 


$1,332,025  93 
235,063  40 


$1,567,194  67 


$1,567,194  67 


$35,140  67 


$5,271  10 


$40,411  77 


$1,946,719  33 


$1,946,719  33 


$116,963  67 


$116,963  67 


$1,891  60 

33,249  07 

5,271  10 


$40,411  77 


$1,654,711  43 
292,007  90 


$1,946,719  33 


$99,419  11 
17,544  56 


$.116,983  67 


■Deposit,  93  cents  too  much. 


f  Commissions,  93  cents  too  small. 


265 


Appendix  showing  Accounts  as  Adjusted,  etc. — Continued. 


Dr. 

Cr. 

State  of  South  Carolina— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,447 

$363,570  67 

State  of  Tennessee— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,564 

$669,498  00 

State  of  Texas— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,632 

$355,106  67 

Territory  of  Utah— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,613 

$26,982  00 

« 

State  of  Vermont— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55  453 

$211,068  00 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,712 

$179,407  80 
31  66'0  20 

By  15  per  cent  commissions 

$211,068  00 

$211,068  00 

State  of  Virginia— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,449 

$937,550  67 

By  amount  apportioned  to  West  Virginia 

$208,479  65 

Balance  due 

729,071  02 

To  balance 

$937,550  67 
729,071  02 

$937,550  67 

Washington  Territory — 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,614.  .     . 

$7,755  33 

By  cash  deposited       

$4,268  16 

By  balance 

3,487  17 

To  balance 

$7,755  33 
3,487  17 

$7,755  33 

State  of  West  Virginia— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  10,872 

$208,479  65 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,872 

$153,978  75 

By  15  per  cent  commissions 

27,172  72 

By  credit  under  letter  of  Secretary  of  Treasury 

27,328  18 

$208,479  65 

$208,479  65 

State  of  Wisconsin— 

To  direct  tax,  as  per  report  No.  55,031 

$519,688  67 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  10,817 

$262,309  55 
39,346  43 

By  15  per  cent  commissions 

Bv  balance 

218,032  69 

$519,688  67 

$519,688  67 

To  balance 

$218,032  69 

By  cash  deposited,  as  per  report  No.  34,698 

$166,887  13 
51  145  56 

By  balance 

To  balance 

$218,032  69 
51,145  56 

$218,032  69 

266 


H%din(]s  Cowperthwait  and  Enoch  H.  Vance,  as  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  the  State  of 

Arkansas. 


Cr. 


(Report  6.) 

To  amount  of  direct  tax 

To  amount  of  penalties  collected 
To  amount  of  interest  collected  .. 

To  amount  of  costs  collected 

To  amount  of  excess  collected  ... 

To  proceeds  sales  of  land _  _ 

By  casli  deposited 

By  taxes  uncollected 

By  taxes  refunded 

(Report  25.) 

By  rent,  salaries,  etc.,  paid 

By  balance  due  United  States 


Total.... 
Tobalance. 


$261,886  00 

3,848  35 

2,006  87 

470  06 

1,571  47 

56,865  00 


$326,647  75 
16,726  76 


$186,736  44 

107,686  72 

14  93 

15,482  90 
16,726  76 

$326,647  75 


Statement  of  the  account  with  the  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  Arkansas,  as  recommended  by 

this  ComTTiission. 


To  direct  tax 

To  penalties  collected $3,848  35 

Less  amount  charged  in  redemptions 27  67 


To  interest  collected. $2,006  87 

Less  amount  charged  in  redemptions 39  14 


To  costs  collected 

Less  amount  charged  in  redemptions. 


$470  06 
83  90 


To  excess  collected 

To  proceeds  sales  of  land  to  individuals $56,865  00 

Less  tax  on  sales  of  land  to  individuals 


566  86 


To  proceeds  of  redemption  ... 

By  cash  deposited 

By  tax  uncollected 

By  tax  refunded 

By  rent,  salaries,  etc.,  paid^... 
By  balance  due  United  States 


Total 

To  balance  due  United  States. 


Dr. 


$261,886  00 
3,820  68 
1,967  73 


386  16 
1,571  47 


56,298  14 
215  67 


$326,145  85 
*16,726  76 


Cr. 


$186,736  44 

107,184  82 

14  93 

15,482  90 

16,726  76 


$326,145  85 


*This  commission  recommend  the  allowance  of  the  further  sum  of  $8,842  48,  which,  if  allowed,  would  reduce 
the  balance  due  the  United  States  to  $7,884  28. 


267 


Harrison  Reed,  L.  D.  Stickney,  John  S.  Sammis,  William  Alsop,  Austin  Smith,  Daniel  Richards, 
Buckingham  Smith,  and  John  Friend,  as  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  Florida. 


Dr. 


Cr. 


(Report  27.) 

To  amount  of  direct  tax .-. 

To  amount  of  penalties  collected 

To  proceeds  sales  of  land - _. 

To  proceeds  redemptions 

To  tax,  penalty,  interest,  and  costs  (not  divisible) 

To  amount  received  for  rent 

To  amount  received  of  Florida  Railroad  Company. 

To  amount  received  sales  of  office  furniture 

To  amount  received  tax  on  salaries 

By  cash  deposited - 

Bj^  miscellaneous  expenses _ 

By  refunded  to  purchasers  after  redemption 

By  amount  returned  to  purchasers  after  first  sale. 

By  amount  sales  not  perfected 

By  amount  deposited  on  account  Florida  Railroad  Company. 

By  amount  fees  paid  Commissioners 

By  amount  taxes  uncollected 

By  balance  due  United  States 


Total 

To  balance 


$77,522  67 

1,994  60 

63,353  78 

3,237  77 

1,752  52 

1,530  38 

4,126  00 

320  00 

98  03 


$153,935  75 
4,907  73 


$44,434  81 

16,419  76 

1,399  45 

8,903  04 

726  70 

4,126  00 

262  00 

72,756  26 

4,907  73 


$153,935  75 


■Statement  of  the  account  with  the  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  Florida,  as  recommended  by 

this  Commission. 


To  direct  tax 

To  penalties  collected 

To  proceeds  sales $63,353  78 

To  less  tax  on  sales 1,496  99 


To  proceeds  redemptions 

To  tax,  penalties,  and  interest  collected,  not  divisible . 

To  rents -_ _ 

To  amount  from  Florida  Railroad  Company 

To  sales  furniture 

To  tax  on  salaries 

By  cash  deposited -.. 

By  miscellaneous  expenses 

By  amount  refunded  on  redemption -.. 

By  amount  refunded  after  first  sale 

By  sales  not  perfected 

By  deposit  on  account  Florida  Railroad  Company 

By  fees  paid  to  Commissioners 

By  tax  uncollected _. 

By  tax  on  lands  bid  in  for  United  States 

By  balance  due  United  States 


Total- 

To  balance  due  United  States. 


$77,522  67 
1,994  60 


61,856  79 
3,237  77 
1,752  52 
1,530  38 
4,126  00 
320  00 
98  03 


$152,438  76 
3,262  16 


$44,434  81 

16,419  76 

1,399  45 

8,903  04 

726  70 

4,126  00 

262  00 

72,762  37 

142  47 

3,262  16 


$152,438  76 


268 


T.  P.  Robb,  Samuel  A.  Fancoast,  and  John  C.  Bates,  as  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  the  State 

of  Georgia. 


(Report  5.) 

To  amount  of  district  tax 

To  excess  of  collections 

By  cash  deposited 

By  cash  paid  for  salaries _ 

By  cash  paid  stationer5^  postage,  etc 

By  advertising  and  printing 

By  rent  of  oflfice 

By  traveling  expenses 

By  miscellaneous  expenses 

By  amount  refunded  as  tax  improperly  collected. 
By  taxes  uncollected 

(Report  23.) 

By  miscellaneous  items 

By  balance 


Total 

To  balance 


$584,367  34 
649  72 


171,407  75 

6,265  35 

260  04 

362  60 

1,404  59 

378  80 

1,163  68 

46  17 

501,939  86 

1,443  56 
344  66 


$585,017  06 
344  66 


$585,017  06 


E.  M.  Randall,  George  W.  Ames,  and  M.  F.  Bonzano,  as  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  the  State 

of  Louisiana. 


Dr. 


Cr. 


(Report  10.) 

To  direct  tax 

By  cash  deposited 

By  salaries  paid 

By  stationery  and  postage... 

By  advertising  and  printing 

By  miscellaneous  expenses 

By  taxes  transferred  to  successors  . 
By  cash  transferred  to  successors.. 


Total 


$385,886  67 


),886  67 


$88,203  72 

1,429  95 

416  25 

2,250  OO 

20  75 

280,452  65 

13,113  37 


$385,886  67 


E.  M.  Randall,  George  W.  Ames,  and  D.  Urban,  as  Direct  Tax  Commissio7iers  for  the  State  of 

Louisiana. 


Dr. 


Cr. 


(Report  11.) 
To  taxes  received  from  predecessor. 
To  cash  received  from  predecessors. 

By  cashdeposited 

By  salaries  paid 

By  stationery  and  postage.. 

By  advertising  and  printing 

By  rent  of  office". 

By  traveling  expenses 

By  miscellaneoiis  expenses 

By  taxes  uncollected 

(Report  26.) 

By  miscellaneous  credits 

By  balance 


$280,452  65 
13,113  37 


Total 

To  balance  due  United  JStates. 


$293,566  02 
14,025  58 


$180,308  92 

10,498  23 

471  50 

57  50 

730  00 

1,234  80 

467  92 

71,385  83 

14,385  74 
14,025  58 


$293,566  02 


269 


Albert  Alderson,  Pennock  Huey,  and  George  A.  Sykes,  as  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  the  State 

of  Mississippi. 


Dr. 


(Report  8.) 
To  direct  tax 

To  interest  collected 

To  proceeds  sales  furniture. . 

By  cash  deposited - . 

By  salaries  paid 

By  stationery  and  postage. .. 
By  advertising  and  printing. 

By  taxes  uncollected  _. 

By  miscellaneous  credits 

(Report  18.) 
By  salaries  paid 

"(Report  22.) 

By  cash  deposited  --. 

By  miscellaneous  expenses.. 


$413,084  67 

416  45 

19  60 


$60,232  28 

2,636  71 

265  11 

15  00 

343,500  12 

83  66 

6,359  66 

30  85 
397  33 

Total 


$413,520  72 


$413,520  72 


Joh7i  R.  French,  Hiram  Potter,  Jr.,  and  Charles  C.  Sholes,  as  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  the 

State  of  North  Carolina. 


Dr. 

Cr. 

(Report  3.) 
To  direct  tax 

$576,194  67 

By  taxes  transferred  to  successors 

$573,747  58 
2,447  09 

By  cash  to  successors    .     ._ 

Total --. 

$576,194  67 

$576,194  67 

John  R.  French,  Hiram  Potter,  Jr.,  and  E.  H  Sears,  as  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  the  State 

of  North  Carolina. 


Dr. 


Cr. 


(Report  4.) 

To  cash  from  predecessors. 

To  taxes  from  predecessors 

To  penalties  collected 

To  interest  collected. 

To  excess  collected 

By  cash  deposited 

By  salaries  paid 

By  stationery  and  postage 

By  advertising  and  printing 

By  rent  of  office 

By  traveling  expenses 

By  miscellaneous  expenses 

By  taxes  uncollected 

(Report  19.) 

By  salaries  paid 

By  excess  of  stubs  over  land  books  . . . 
By  Silver  Hill  Mining  Company's  tax 

Total 


$2,447  09 

573,747  58 

26,217  78 

589  51 

383  82 


$386,194  45 

12,857  65 

344  56 

285  40 

1,019  88 

517  85 

916  48 

198,742  06 

1,323  63 

383  82 
800  00 


$603,385  78 


$603,385 


270 


W.  H.  Brisbane,  W.  E.  Wording,  W.  Drummond,  A.  D.  Smith,  D.  N.  Cooley,  and  J.  D.  Martiny 
as  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  South  Carolina. 


Dr. 


Cr. 


(Keport  12.) 

To  direct  tax 

To  penalties  collected 

To  interest  collected 

To  proceeds  of  sales  of  land 

To  proceeds  redemption 

To  sales  to  the  army  and  navy 

To  sales  to  heads  of  families 

To  special  rents  on  lands -. 

To  rents  on  lands 

To  school  fund  under  President's  instructions. 

To  school  fund  under  Act  July  16,  1866 

To  sales  of  maps 

To  certificate  fees _ 

To  rents  on  certificates 

To  forfeitures 

To  sales  to  loyal  citizens ._. 

To  interest  on  deferred  payments 

To  Sherman  warrants  sales - 

To  costs  advertising  lands  not  paid  for 

To  costs  exacted  before  sale 

To  miscellaneous  collections 

(Report  16.) 
To  error  in  report  12 

(Report  12.) 

By  cash  deposited 

By  taxes  uncollected .-. 

By  cash  transferred  to  Bureau  of  R.  F.  and  A.  Lands. 

By  cash  paid  William  R.  Cloutman .-. 

By  cash  disbursed  on  account  of  schools. 

By  cash  disbursed  on  account  of  fees,  etc 

By  certificate  fees 

(Report  16.) 

By  cash  transferred  to  William  R.  Cloutman  ._. 

By  cash  disbursed 


Total. 


1363,570  67 

132  76 

27,284  99 

28,232  29 

954  82 

137,018  68 

31,833  46 

21,845  42 

21,899  70 

26,797  12 

56,515  35 

24  00 

4,465  50 

2,763  90 

50  00 

41,768  00 

982  50 

54  75 

50  52 

52  98 

365  15 

2,514  71 


1471,378  59 

152,781  35 

55,040  12 

3,444  45 

22,396  16 

55;814  12 

4,465  50 

2,514  71 
1,342  27 


$769,177  27 


$769,177  27 


271 


Statement  of  the  Account  with  the  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  South  Carolina  as  recom- 
mended by  this  Commission. 


Cr. 


To  direct  tax - 

To  penalties  collected _ 

To  interest  collected 

To  sales  of  land $28,232  29 

Less  tax  on  land 1,973  29 


To  proceeds  of  redemption 

To  sales  to  army  and  navy 

To  sales  to  heads  of  families 

To  special  rents 

To  rents  on  land _ 

To  school  fund,  President's  instructions _ 

To  school  fund,  Act  July  16,  1866 

To  sales  of  maps 

To  certificate  fees 

To  rents  on  certificates 

To  forfeitures 

To  sales  to  loyal  citizens 

To  interest  on  deferred  payments 

To  Sherman  warrants  sales — 

To  costs,  advertising  land,  etc 

To  costs  exacted  before  sale.. 

To  miscellaneous  collections. 

To  balance 

By  cash  deposited 

By  tax  uncollected 

By  tax  on  lands  bid  in  for  United  States 

By  cash  to  Bureau  Refugees,  Freedmen,  and  abandoned  lands. 

By  cash  to  William  R.  Cloutman 

By  cash  disbursed,  account  schools 

By  cashed  disbursed,  account  fees,  etc 

By  cash  disbursed,  account  certificate  fees  _ 


Total.... 
By  balance 


$363,570  67 
132  76 

27,284  99 


26,259  00 

954  82 

137,018  68 

31,833  46 

21,845  42 

21,899  70 

26,797  12 

56,515  35 

24  00 

4,465  50 

2,763  90 

50  00 

41,768  00 

982  50 

54  75 

50  52 

52  98 

365  15 

248  00 


$468,863  88 

141,174  31 

9,881  75 

55,040  12 

5,959  16 

22,396  16 

57,156  39 

4,465  50 


$7&4,937  27 


$764,937  27 
248  00 


272 


William  R.  Cloutman,  as  successor  to  Direct  Tax  Commissioners,  for  South  Carolina. 


Dr. 


Cr. 


(Report  15.) 

To  cash  received  from  predecessor 

To  cash  from  sales  of  land.. 

To  cash  from  redemptions 

To  cash  from  miscellaneous  sales 

To  cash  from  rents  of  school  farms 

To  cash  from  special  rents 

To  cash  from  other  rents 

To  cash  from  deferred  payments 

'    (Report  17.) 

To  cash  from  predecessors 

(Report  29.) 
To  cash  from  collections,  W.  E.  Wording 

To  cash  from  redemptions 

To  cash  from  miscellaneous  collections. . 
To  amount  due  collector  and  suspended. 

( Report  15.) 

By  cash  deposited 

By  cash  deposited,  account  school  fund.. 

By  salaries  paid 

B}^  stationery,  postage,  etc. 

By  advertising,  printing,  etc. 

By  traveling  expenses 

By  miscellaneous  expenses 

'(Report  29.) 

By  cash  deposited 

By  overcharge  sales,  H.  F 

By  overcharge  miscellaneous  sales 

By  overcharge  rents  school  farms 

By  overcharge  special  rents 

By  overcharge  other  rents 

By  overcharge  deferred  payments 

By  rents  returned  to  owners . 

By  amount  refunded  on  redemption! 


Total 

By  amount  due  collector  and  suspended. 


$3,444  45 

1,542  00 

5,279  80 

604  30 

2,969  10 

18,952  39 
8,002  16 
7,442  08 

2,514  71 

2,329  06 

123  85 

52  25 

255  18 


$18,898  52 

5,071  27 

215  99 

75  13 

63  00 

291  45 

1,183  16 

9,260  18 

778  25 

436  55 

1,121  40 

7,312  27 

4,432  70 

127  50 

192  61 

4,051  35 


$53,511  33 


$53,511  33 
255  18 


273 


A.  J.  Ransier,  as  successor  of  the  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  South  Carolina. 


Cr. 


(Report  28.) 

To  proceeds  of  redemption 

To  proceeds  of  deferred  payments  ... 

To  proceeds  of  rents 

To  proceeds  of- miscellaneous  sales... 

By  cash  deposited 

By  amount  refunded  on  redemption 
Bv  balance  due  United  States 


$1,735  03 

824  01 

369  25 

6  00 


Totals 

To  balance  due  United  States . 


$2,934  29 
35  00 


$2,744  24 

155  05 

35  00 


$2,934  29, 


Delano  T.  Smith,  Elisha  P.  Ferry,  Absalom  A.  Kyle,  John  B.  Rogers,  and  Edward  P.  Cone,  as 
Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  Tennessee. 


Dr. 


Cr. 


(Report  9.) 
'  To  direct  tax 

To  penalties  collected 

To  interest  collected 

To  costs  collected.. 

To  excess  collected 

To  proceeds  sale  of  land... 

To  proceeds  redemptions 

To  collections  Adams  Express  Company 
To  proceeds  sale  of  furniture 

(Report  14.) 
To  error  in  Report  13...'. 

(Report  9.) 

By  cash  deposited 

By  salaries  paid 

By  stationery,  postage,  etc 

By  advertising,  printing,  etc 

By  rent  of  office 

By  miscellaneous  expenses 

By  taxes  uncollected 

'(Report  13.) 
By  amount  refunded  on  redemption 

(Report  14.) 

By  amount  refunded  on  redemption 

By  cash  deposited 

By  miscellaneous  credits 


Totals 


$669,498  00 

12,382  94 

909  54 

967  36 

7  59 

123,097  00 

8,732  50 

27  50 

154  16 

5  00 


$467,700  00 

5,463  25 

240  25 

2,387  50 

250  00 

446  60 

287,963  43 

31,090  61 

3,319  85 

22  06 

16.898  04 


$815,781  59 


$815,781  59 


18 


274 


Statement  of  the  Account  with  the  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  Tennessee,  as  recommended 

this  Commission. 


Dr. 


Cr. 


To  direct  tax 

To  penalties  collected 

To  interest  collected 

To  costs  collected _. 

To  excess  collected  .-. 

To  sales  of  land $123,097  00 

.Less  tax  on  land -- 8,728  93 


rTo  proceeds  of  redemption 

To  collections  of  Adams  Express  Company. 

To  sale  of  furniture 

By  cash  deposited  -.. 

By  salaries  paid 

By  stationery,  postage,  etc 

By  advertising,  printing,  etc. 

By  rent  of  office 

By  miscellaneous  expenses 

By  amount  refunded  on  redemption 

By  tax  uncollected 

By  tax  on  property  bid  in  for  United  States 

Totals - 


1669,498  00 

12,382  94 

909  54 

967  36 

7  59 


114,368  07 

8,732  50 

27  50 

154  16 


$467,722  06 

5,463  25 

240  25 

2,387  50 

250  00 

17,344  64 

34,405  46 

277,505  77 

1,728  73 


$807,047  66 


$807,047  66 


Robert  K.  Smith,  A.  J.  Coleman,  and  A.  H.  Latimer,  as  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  the  State 

of  Texas. 


Cr. 


(Report  7.) 
To  direct  tax 

To  penalties  collected 

To  interest  collected^ 

To  costs  collected 

To  excess  collected 

By  cash  deposited 

By  salaries  paid 

By  stationery  and  postage 

By  advertising  and  printing . . 

By  rent  of  office 

By  traveling  expenses 

By  miscellaneous  expenses  __. 

By  taxes  uncollected  .-. 

'(Report  24.) 

By  miscellaneous  credits 

By  balance  due  United  States. 


$355,106  67 

14,578  28 

12,955  00 

5,679  18 

45  21 


$130,008  06 
3,463  36 
384  50 
212  50 
150  00 
271  00 
266  24 
174,265  16 

.28,878  69 
50,464  83 


Totals... 
To  balance 


$388,364  34 
50.464  83 


^,364  34 


275 


John  Hawxhurst,  W.  J.  Boreman,  and  Gillet  F.  Watson,  as  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for  the 

State  of  Virginia. 


Dr. 


Cr. 


(Report  1.) 

To  direct  tax ... 

To  penalties  collected -.  - 

To  interest  collected 

To  costs  collected 

To  excess  collected 

To  proceeds  sales  of  land 

By  cash  deposited 

By  tax  on  land  bid  in  by  United  States 

By  tax  transferred  to  successors 

By  cash  transferred  to  successors 


$937,550  67 

51  24 

46  24 

219  62 

30  49 

28,228  97 


Totals 


$966,127  23 


$45,575  61 

92  07 

919,985  95 

473  60 


$966,127  23 


Statement  of  the  Account  with  the  First  Board  of  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  Virginia,  as 
recommended  by  this  Commission. 


Dr. 


Cr. 


To  direct  tax 

To  penalties  collected -. 

To  interest  collected _ _. 

To  costs  collected _ _. 

To  excess  collected  .-. 

To  sales  of  land $28,400  00 

Less  tax  on  land 171  03 


By  balance  due  United  States 

By  cash  deposited 

By  tax  on  land  bid  in  for  United  States. 

By  tax  transferred  to  successors 

By  cash  transferred  to  successors 


$937,550  67 

51  24 

46  24 

219  62 

30  49 


28,228  97 


Totals 

To  balance  due  United  States. 


$966,127  23 
171  03 


$171  03 

45,575  61 

92  07 

919,814  92 

473  60 


$966,127  23 


276 


John  HaivxMirst,  Gillet  F.  Watson,  and  A.  Lawrence  Foster,  as  Direct  Tax  Commissioners  for 

the  State  of  Virginia. 


Dr. 


(Report  2.) 

To  taxes  received  from  predecessors -.., 

To  cash  received  from  predecessors 

To  penalties  collected .-- 

To  interest  collected 

To  costs  collected 

To  excess  collected 

To  proceeds  sales  of  land-. 

To  proceeds  redemptions 

To  collections  in  territory  assigned  to  West  Virginia 

By  cash  deposited 

By  tax  on  salaries  deposited 

By  salaries  paid : 

By  stationery,  etc.,  1463  72;  advertising,  etc.,  $5,191  49.-. 

By  rent  of  ofhce 

By  traveling  expenses,  $2,510  78;  miscellaneous  expenses,  $722  16 

By  tax  on  land  bid  in  for  the  United  States. 

By  amount  refunded  on  redemption 

By  tax  uncollected 

By  tax  apportioned  to  West  Virginia 

(Report  21.) 

By  salaries  paid 

By  advertising  and  printing 

By  miscellaneous  expenses ^ 


$919,985  95 
473  60 
329  71 

2,787  90 

3,332  45 

264  19 

84,897  70 

528  35 

27,728  40 


$497,322  29 

914  87 

31,652  64 

5,655  21 

525  50 

3,232  94 

112  56 

4,484  37 

286,499  37 

208,479  65 

35  25 
472  60 
941  00 


Totals 


$1,040,328  25 


L,040,328  25 


Statement  of  the  account  with  the  second  Board  of  Commissioners  for  the  State  of  Virginia, 
as  recommended  by  this  Commission. 


Cr. 


To  taxes  from  predecessors 

To  cash  from  predecessors 

To  penalties  collected 

To  interest  collected 

To  costs  collected 

To  excess  collected 

To  proceeds  sales $85,455  57 

Less  tax  on  sales 350  91 


To  proceeds  redemptions 

To  collections  in  West  Virginia 

To  balance 

By  cash  deposited . 

By  salaries  paid 

By  stationery  and  postage 

By  advertising  and  printing 

By  rent  of  office 

By  traveling    expenses,    $2,510  78;    miscellaneous  expenses, 

$1,663  16.... 

By  tax  on  land  bid  in  for  United  States 

By  amount  refunded  on  redemptions 

By  tax  uncollected ^ 

By  tax  apportioned  to  West  Virginia 


$919,814  92 

473  60 

329  71 

2,787  90 

3,332  45 

264  19 


85,104  66 
528  35 

27,728  40 
171  03 


Totals 
By  balance  . 


$1,940,535  21 


$498,237  16 

31,687  89 

463  72 

5,664  09 

525  50 

4,173  94 
155  96 

4,484  37 
286,662  93 
208,479  65 


$1,040,535  21 
171  03 


277 


EXHIBIT  No.  47. 


Hon.  J.  N.  DoLPH,  United  States  Senate: 


July  20,  1886. 


Dear  Senator:  In  support  of  some  of  the  propositions  by  me  submitted 
to  you  in  relation  to  the  direct  tax  matter,  I  have  gone  to  the  pains  of 
examining  the  census  reports  of  the  population  of  the  several  States  and 
Territories  for  1860  and  1880,  a  table  of  which  I  have  prepared,  and  a  copy 
whereof  I  now  inclose  you  herewith. 

An  examination  thereof,  which  shows  the  difference  in  population  in 
Oregon  between  1860  and  1880,  will  be  a  guide  to  determine  the  difference 
thereof  in  1864  and  1886.     But  a  similar  difference  in  population  will,  I 
think,  apply  equally,  or  as  near  as  may  be,  to  each  of  the  other  States. 
Yours  truly, 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
State  Agent  and  Counsel  for  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada. 

Table  showing  the  population  of  the  several  States  and  Territories  in  1860  and  1880,  as  taken 
from  the  Official  Census  Reports. 


Name  of    State  ok 
Territory. 


Population 
in  1860. 


Population 
in  1880. 


Name  of    State  or 
Territory. 


Population 
in  1860. 


Population 
in  1880. 


Alabama. 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado.. 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Florida 

Georgia 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa... 

Kansas 

Kentuckj?^.. 

Louisiana 

Maine... 

Maryland 

Massachusetts  .. 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

Nevada  

New  Hampshire 
New  Jersey 


529,121 
324,335 
379,994 
34,277 
460,147 
110,418 
78,679 
595,088 

1,711,951 

1,350,428 
674,913 
107,204 
930,201 
376,276 
628,279 
599,860 

1,231,066 
749,113 
172,123 
354,674 

1,067,081 

28,826 

6,857 

326.073 

672,017 


1,262,505 

802,525 

864,694 

194,327 

622,700 

146,608 

269,493 

1,542,180 

3,077,871 

1,978,301 

1,624,615 

996,096 

1,648,690 

939,946 

648,936 

934,943 

1,783.085 

1,636,937 

780,773 

1,131,597 

2,168,380 

452,402 

62,266 

346,991 

1,131,116 


New  York 

North  Carolina 

Ohio 

Oregon... 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode  Island 

South  Carolina 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Vermont. -- 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Arizona- 

Dakota 

Dist.  of  Columbia . 

Idaho..-. 

Montana 

New  Mexico 

Utah..-. 

Washington 

Wyoming 


3,880,735 
661,563 

2,239,511 
52,465 

2,906,215 
174,020 
301,302 
834,082 
429,649 
315,098 

1,105,453 


775,881 


Total  population. 


4,837 
71,895 


93,516 
40,244 
11,594 


5,082,871 

1,399,750 

3,198,062 

174,768 

4,282,891 

276,531 

995,577 

1,542,359 

1,591,749 

332,286 

1,512,565 

618,457 

1,315,497 

40,440 

135,177 

177,624 

32,610 

39,159 

119,565 

143,963 

75,116 

20,789 


31,443,321 


50,155,783 


Total  population  in  1870 38,558,371 

Total  population  in  1850 23,191.876 

Total  population  in  1840 17,0691453 

Total  population  in  1830. 12,866,020 

Total  population  in  1820 9,633,822 

Total  population  in  1810 ....  7,239,881 

Total  population  in  1800 5,308,483 

Total  population  in  1790..... 3,929,214 


Hon.  J.  N.  DoLPH,  United  States  Senate: 


July  18,  1886. 


Dear  Senator:  I  have  maturely  considered  the  suggestion  you  make  in 
connection  with  the  provisions  of  the  Direct  Tax  Bill,  as  contained  in  the 
amendment  of  Senator  Hampton  to  the  Georgia  Bill  in  this,  to  wit:  "  That 


278 

the  State  of  Oregon  might  possibly  be  called  upon  to  pay  into  the  Federal 
Treasury  an  amount  greater  than  that  which  she  would  receive  from  the 
refund  as  provided  for  by  Senator  Hampton's  amendment." 

I  cannot  for  the  life  of  me  see  how  said  suggestion  can  possibly  rest  on 
any  solid  foundation,  and  because  in  the  first  place  Oregon  as  a  State  does 
not  either  directly  or  indirectly  pay  any  money  into  the  Federal  Treasury, 
nor  do  her  people  pay  any  money  into  their  State  Treasury  in  order  to  pay 
the  same  or  with  any  expectation  of  its  being  paid  into  the  Federal  Treas- 
ury, and  because  whatever  sums  are  by  the  people  of  Oregon  paid  into  their 
own  State  Treasury  are  for  purposes  exclusively  State  or  local,  and  not  for 
purposes  that  are  in  any  wise  Federal;  nor  are  any  taxes  that  are  levied 
upon  or  collected  from  the  people  of  the  State  of  Oregon,  either  by  virtue  of 
any  State  or  Federal  laws,  expended  for  any  purposes  that  are  exclusively 
Federal.  It  is  true  that  the  people  of  the  State  of  Oregon  contribute  con- 
stantly towards  the  General  Fund  in  the  Federal  Treasury,  but  even 
their  contribution  is  based  exclusively  and  limited  solely  by  their  own 
consumption  of  articles  imported,  and  which  bear  or  pay  a  Federal  tariff^ 
or  the  character  of  their  local  manufacturing  enterprises  which  pay  a 
Federal  internal  revenue  tax  into  the  Federal  Treasury;  and  these  are 
increased  or  diminished  by  causes  entirely  foreign  to  and  immaterial  of  the 
fact  whether  the  wants  of  the  General  Government  are  few  or  many,  and 
irrespective  of  the  sums  of  money  in  the  Federal  Treasury,  or  the  specific 
purposes  for  which  they  are  appropriated. 

These  two  factors,  be  they  constant  or  be  they  variable  quantities,  are  not 
in  anywise  measured  or  affected  by  the  amount  of  money  that  might  be 
taken  from  the  Federal  Treasury  with  which  to  refund  this  direct  tax. 

The  disproportion  between  the  population  of  the  State  of  Oregon,  as 
game  exists  now,  and  as  it  existed  in  1864,  when  Oregon  assumed  the  pay- 
ment of  this  direct  tax,  would,  and  I  think  does,  equally  (or  very  nearly 
so)  apply  to  each  and  all  the  other  States. 

So  that  Oregon  certainly  would  not  have  any  valid  grounds  of  complaint 
as  against  the  other  States,  or  against  any  of  them,  and  because  Oregon, 
like  the  other  States,  would  have  refunded  to  her — as  would  be  refunded 
to  each  of  them  respectively — just  the  exact  amount  of  money  that  she 
had  contributed  to  the  Federal  Treasury  on  account  of  said  direct  tax, 
and  in  the  same  manner  as  contributed  by  any  other  States,  and  not 
otherwise. 

The  proposition  of  Senator  Hampton's  bill  goes  to  this  extent  only,  to 
wit:  that  if  a  State  has  put  into  the  Federal  Treasury  any  sum  consti- 
tuting the  said  Direct  Tax  Fund,  then  she  draws  out  just  that  identical 
sum,  and  no  more  and  no  less.  Surely  no  public  proposition  could  be 
more  fair  or  more  equitable  (in  view  of  all  the  circumstances  that  now 
surround  the  situation  of  said  tax,  and  as  the  same  appears  upon  the  records 
of  the  Treasury  Department) ;  and  because  if  a  State  has  not  contributed 
anything  towards  said  Direct  Tax  Fund  in  the  Federal  Treasury,  she  then 
draws  nothing  out;  and  if  she  draws  anything  out,  it  is  simply  and  only 
that  identical  sum  that  she  put  in,  and  not  otherwise. 

It  might  possibly  be  Oregon's  misfortune  when  the  refund  takes  place 
(should  it  fortunately  take  place)  that  Oregon  had  not  heretofore  con- 
tributed to  this  fund  a  sum  larger  than  she  actually  has;  but  when  Oregon 
remembers  that  she,  like  any  other  State,  would  draw  out — like  them — 
just  what  she  put  in,  I  can't  see  where  lays  her  ground  for  valid  objection, 
and  especially,  too,  when  it  is  remembered  that  whatever  sum  is  refunded 
comes  out  of  a  surplus  now  in  the  Treasury,  and  is  not  paid  out  of  a  sum 
to  be  raised  by  direct  taxation  either  upon  the  several  States  or  upon  the 


279 

people  of  any  thereof,  and  the  sum  which  any  State  would  receive  would 
practically  be  so  much  made  by  such  State ;  and  I  respectfully  submit  that 
that  which  any  one  State  would  receive  would  not  be  paid  at  the  expense 
of  any  other  State. 

You  are  aware,  Senator,  of  course,  that  as  a  general  proposition  the 
amounts  of  money  frequently  paid  out  of  the  Federal  Treasury  for  the  bene- 
fit of  matters  and  things  in  any  particular  State,  are  not  in  proportion  to 
the  amounts  of  money  that  the  people  of  such  States  pay  into  the  Federal 
Treasury.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  sometimes  just  the  reverse,  and  even 
at  times  the  sums  that  some  States  draw  out  of  the  Federal  Treasury  are 
inversely  proportional  to  the  sums  that  the  people  of  such  States  put  into 
the  Federal  Treasury;  a  condition  of  things  depending  upon  so  many  factors, 
constant  and  variable,  that  it  is  often  difficult,  even  if  it  be  at  all  possible, 
to  ascertain  or  determine  just  how  such  things  do  occur;  but  that  they  do 
occur  all  careful  students  of  current  events,  I  think,  do  and  must  admit. 

Whereas,  so  far  as  I  know,  this  amendment  of  Senator  Hampton  is  one 
of  the  very  few  propositions  ever  submitted  to  Congress  wherein  and  under 
and  by  which  the  amounts  of  money  sought  to  be  appropriated  toward  any 
State  (and  to  each  and  all  alike)  was  and  is  to  be  the  exact  amount  that 
such  State  had  paid  into  the  Federal  Treasury  in  some  way  or  another  on 
account  of  the  direct  tax,  and  not  otherwise. 

To  practically  illustrate  some  of  the  foregoing  propositions,  take  for 
instance  the  present  River  and  Harbor  Bill  as  it  has  just  passed  the  Senate, 
and  as  the  same  appears  reported  on  pages  7464  to  7469  of  yesterday's 
Congressional  Record,  and  wherein  sundry  sums,  aggregating  in  all  between 
half  a  million  and  one  million  of  dollars,  are  appropriated  for  the  rivers 
and  harbors  in  the  State  of  Oregon. 

Now,  surely,  these  appropriations  are  not  based  upon  the  theory  that  the 
people  of  the  State  of  Oregon  had  paid  into  the  Federal  Treasury  these 
identical  sums;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  would  a  valid  objection  lie  to  making 
these  appropriations  because  of  the  allegation  that  Oregon  had  not  so  paid 
any  such  sums  into  the  Federal  Treasury;  or,  because  in  default  thereof, 
some  other  State  would  be  taxed  in  any  sum  with  which  to  pay  said  appro- 
priation; (for  instance,  the  States  of  Colorado  and  Nevada,  neither  of  which 
have  rivers  or  harbors  to  improve  for  commercial  purposes,  or  be  defended 
for  the  general  welfare).  Nor  would  a  valid  objection  lie  thereto  because 
or  by  virtue  of  making  such  appropriations  any  particular  State  would 
thereby  lose  more  than  she  would  make,  or  because  any  State  might  be 
called  upon  to  pay  out  more  than  she  would  get  back  in  such  premises. 

But,  on  the  contrary,  I  take  it  for  granted  that  the  valid  and  public 
reason  why  all  such  appropriations  are  made  is  that  it  is  just  and  fair  and 
equitable  to  make  them.  So  too  I  submit,  with  every  proper  respect  for  the 
opinions  and  views  of  others,  that  Senator  Hampton's  amendment  should 
pass  because  it  is  just  and  fair  and  equitable  to  pass  it. 

In  my  opinion,  it  seldom  falls  to  the  lot  of  the  Senate  to  consider  a  public 
question  so  free  from  valid  objections  as  this  of  Senator  Hampton,  or  one 
so  just  and  fair,  because  it  does  full  equity  (as  near  as  may  be),  to  every 
State,  by  including  all,  and  excluding  none. 

In  the  foregoing  I  make  no  reference  to  views  which  all  statesmen  are 
supposed  to  always  take  in  all  matters  of  conflict,  whenever  the  same  arise, 
between  the  several  States  and  the  United  States,  and  wherein,  as  in  this 
case,  considerable  friction  has  heretofore  quite  frequently  arisen,  and  is 
now  constantly  arising;  and  wherein  I  submit  a  pacific  adjustment  of  all 
thereof  is  of  more  vital  importance  to  the  general  welfare  than  any  consid- 
eration that  can  possibly  be  given  as  to  the  exact  number  of  dollars  and 


280 

cents  it  might  possibly  cost  any  one  State,  even  if  it  should  cost  a  State 
anything  at  all  in  dollars  and  cents,  which  I  respectfully  submit  in  this 
case  it  does  not,  and  because  it  cannot. 

I  believe  a  majority  of  all  Senators,  who  have  given  this  subject  any  ma- 
ture consideration,  are  in  favor  of  passing  Senator  Hampton's  amendment, 
and  I  also  believe  that  if  this  amendment  should  pass  the  Senate  that  it 
will  pass  the  House,  under  even  a  suspension  of  the  rules. 

Very  many  Republicans  in  the  House,  men  like  Messrs.  Ramsey,  Hep- 
burn, Price,  Burrows,  Little,  and  others,  not  only  favor  Senator  Hampton's 
proposition,  but  even  favor  it  strongly ;  and  the  difficulty,  all  along,  has 
seemed  to  be  that  a  few  Democrats  in  the  House  have  been  so  weak-kneed 
that  an  adoption  of  these  views  might  possibly  in  some  way  affect  their 
reelection  to  the  next  Congress;  and  I  am  further  of  the  opinion,  if  the 
Senate  should  pass  Senator  Hampton's  amendment,  that  even  this  objec- 
tion on  the  part  of  such  Democrats  would  not  only  be  removed,  but  that 
many  of  them  now  on  the  fence  would  try  even  to  make  political  capital 
out  of  their  vote  in  favor  of  it. 

I  hope,  therefore.  Senator,  when  you  come  to  further  and  more  ma- 
turely reflect  over  this  matter  and  of  this  suggestion,  as  it  has  occurred  to 
you  in  regard  thereto,  that  you  will  not  permit  the  same  to  ripen  into  a 
valid  objection,  either  to  the  favorable  consideration  or  the  ultimate  pas- 
sage of  Senator  Hampton's  amendment,  which  to  me,  view  it  as  I  may, 
seems  to  be  in  all  respects  one  of  the  most  equitable  and  fair  propositions 
that  was  ever  submitted  to  Congress  in  order  to  amicably  terminate  a  con- 
flict now  existing  between  the  United  States  and  many  of  the  several 
States,  and  which  has  got  to  be  settled,  sooner  or  later,  and  in  a  manner 
that  will  be  satisfactory  to  the  great  majorit}^  of  all  the  States. 
Very  truly  yours, 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
State  Agent  and  Counsel  for  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada. 


EXHIBITS 


MODOC  CLAIM 


EXHIBIT  No.  1. 

[Copy.] 

State  of  California,  Executive  Department, 
Sacramento,  Cal.,  March  7,  1882. 

John  Mullan,  Esq.^  Washington^  D.  C: 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  favor  of  the  seventh  instant,  relative  to  prosecuting 
the  claim  of  this  State  against  the  United  States  for  money  expended  by  it 
during  the  Modoc  Indian  War,  I  herewith  authorize  you,  on  behalf  of  the 
State  of  California,  to  represent  the  same  in  endeavoring  to  recover  such 
amount  as  may  be  found  due  and  owing  by  the  United  States  Government 
and  [to]  the  State  of  California,  on  the  express  conditions  and  stipulations 
stated  in  your  communication  of  the  date  above  cited. 
Verv  respectfully, 

GEO.  C.  PERKINS, 
Governor  of  California. 


EXHIBIT  No.  2. 

Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.    S.  1502.    Report  No.  306. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  March  17, 1882— Mr.  Miller  of  Cali- 
fornia asked  and  by  unanimous  consent  obtained  leave  to  bring  in  the 
following  bill,  which  was  read  twice,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Military  Affairs. 

March  22,  1882 — Reported  by  Mr.  Harrison  with  an  amendment,  viz.: 
Insert  the  part  printed  in  italics. 

A  BILL 

For  the  relief  of  the  State  of  California  and  the  citizens  thereof 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  «,nd  required  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Califor- 
nia, and  to  the  citizens  thereof,  or  to  their  heirs,  legal  representatives,  or 
assignees,  the  sum  of  four  thousand  four  hundred  and  forty-one  dollars  and 
thirty-three  cents,  for  arms,  ammunition,  supplies,  transportation,  and  ser- 
vices of  the  volunteer  forces  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  said 
State  in  the  years  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-two  and  eighteen  hundred 
and  seventy- three,  and  as  the  same  were  specifically  reported  to  Congress 
by  the  Secretary  of  War  December  fifteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy- 
four,  in  his  report  transmitted  to  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the 
Modoc  war  claims  of  California  and  Oregon,  and  as  found  due  and  reported 
to  said  Secretary  by  General  James  A.  Hardie,  United  States  Army, 
November  twentieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-four;  and  said  sum  is 
hereby  appropriated  for  the  purpose  aforesaid,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treas- 
ury not  otherwise  appropriated. 


284 

Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.    Senate.    Report  No.  306. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     March  22 — Ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Harrison,  from  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  submitted  the 
following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  S.  1502.] 

The  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  to  whom  was  referred  "  a  bill  for  the 
relief  of  the  State  of  California  and  the  citizens  thereof"  (S.  1502)  respect- 
fully report: 

That  by  an  Act  of  Congress,  passed  June  18,  1874,  the  Secretary  of  War 
was  required  "to  ascertain  the  amount  of  expenses  claimed  to  be  neces- 
sarily incurred  by  the  States  of  Oregon  and  California,  or  the  citizens 
thereof,  for  arms,  ammunition,  supplies,  transportation,  and  services  of  the 
volunteer  forces  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  said  States  in  the 
years  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-two  and  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy- 
three,  and  report  the  same  to  Congress  at  the  next  session,  together  with 
the  names  of  persons  who  claim  to  be  entitled  to  relief,  together  with  a 
statement  of  the  facts  and  sums  upon  which  such  report  may  be  based." 

In  obedience  to  the  requirements  of  this  Act  the  Secretary  of  War,  on 
the  twentieth  June,  1874,  issued  an  order  detailing  Inspector-General  James 
A.  Hardie  to  make  the  examination  and  report  called  for  by  the  Act.  On 
the  twentieth  November,  1874,  General  Hardie  submitted  his  report  to  the 
Secretary  of  War,  who  on  the  fifteenth  December  following  transmitted  it 
to  Congress,  and  the  same  was  published  as  Ex.  Doc.  45,  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, second  session,  Forty-third  Congress.  From  this  report  it  ap- 
pears that  a  thorough  examination  was  made  on  the  ground  of  all  the 
claims  presented.  The  necessity  for  calling  out  the  State  troops  to  aid  the 
troops  of  the  United  States  in  protecting  the  settlers  and  suppressing  the 
Indian  outbreak  cannot,  the  committee  think,  be  questioned.  These  State 
troops  reported  to  and  in  the  main  acted  under  the  orders  of  the  officers  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  committee  think  that  the  reasonable  expenses 
incident  to  the  service  of  these  troops  should  be  paid. 

The  rules  adopted  by  General  Hardie  in  arriving  at  the  proper  amount 
to  be  paid  are  thus  stated  by  him  in  his  report: 

In  this  condition  of  things  it  would  seem  fair  that  the  United  States  should  pay  into 
the  State  Treasury  the  amount  of  the  obligations  of  the  State  for  the  purchase  of  arms 
and  munitions,  cavalry  and  quartermaster  horses  and  military  supplies;  for  transporta- 
tion, forage,  medical  attendance,  and  the  necessary  citizens'  labor  employed,  at  such  rates 
as  the  United  States  was  paying  on  the  spot  at  the  time.  On  account  of  pay  of  troops 
the  reimbursement  can  only  reasonably  extend  to*  such  an  amount  as  the  United  States 
would  have  paid  the  same  officers  and  the  same  men  had  they  been  mustered  into  the 
service.  For  the  hire  of  the  cavalry  horses,  upon  which  the  troops  were  mounted,  the 
United  States'  scale  of  commutation  should  be  allowed.  For  subsistence  the  number  of 
rations  which  the  troops  would  have  consumed  had  they  been  regularly  mustered  into 
the  service,  commuted  at  the  cost  price  of  the  ration  where  they  served,  fixes  the  rate  of 
reimbursement.  For  the  clothing,  an  amount  should  be  reimbursed  the  State  equal  to 
the  usual  commutation  allowance  of  clothing  to  volunteers  when  called  into  service. 

We  think  this  basis  of  adjustment  right.  After  carefully  examining 
each  claim  and  rejecting  such  as  did  not  come  within  the  rules  we  have 
stated,  and  such  as  were  not  sufficiently  proved.  General  Hardie  reports 
that  the  amount  due  to  the  State  of  California,  and  to  the  citizens  thereof, 
on  account  of  the  service  of  the  State  troops  in  the  years  1872  and  1873, 
in  connection  with  what  is  known  as  the  Modoc  War,  and  including  all 
expenses  incident  to  such  service,  is  the  sum  of . 


285 

The  committee  believe  that  the  sum  of  four  thousand  four  hundred  and 
forty-one  dollars  and  thirty-three  cents  ($4,441  33)  is  fairly  due  to  the  State 
of  California,  and  to  the  citizens  thereof,  in  the  several  sums  allowed  to 
each  in  the  report  of  General  Hardie  before  referred  to.  We  therefore 
recommend  the  passage  of  this  bill  with  an  amendment,  which  is  shown 
at  the  foot  thereof. 


EXHIBIT  No.  3. 

Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  4244.    Printer's  No.,  4624. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     February  13,  1882 — Read  twice,  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Berry  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

For  the  relief  of  the  State  of  California^  and  the  citizens  thereof. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  required  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, and  to  the  citizens  thereof,  or  to  their  heirs,  legal  representatives,  or 
assigns,  the  sum  of  four  thousand  four  hundred  and  forty-one  dollars  and 
thirty-three  cents,  for  arms,  ammunition,  supplies,  transportation,  and  ser- 
vice of  the  volunteer  forces  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  said 
State  in  the  years  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-two  and  eighteen  hundred 
and  seventy-three,  and  as  specially  reported  to  Congress  by  the  Secretary 
of  War  December  fifteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-four,  in  his 
report  transmitted  to  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  Modoc  war 
claims  of  California  and  Oregon,  and  as  found  due  and  reported  to  said 
Secretary  by  General  James  A.  Hardie  November  twentieth,  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  seventy-four. 


EXHIBIT  No.  4. 

Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.    S.  145.    Report  No.  114. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  December  6, 1881 — Mr.  Grover  asked 
and  by  unanimous  consent  obtained  leave  to  bring  in  the  following  bill; 
which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs. 

February  2,  1882 — Reported  by  Mr.  Harrison  with  amendments,  viz.: 
Omit  the  parts  struck  through  and  insert  the  parts  printed  in  italics. 

A   BILL 

To  reimburse  the  State  of  Oregon  for  moneys  paid  by  said  State  in  the  sup- 
pression of  Indian  hostilities  during  the  Modoc  war,  in  the  years  eighteen 
hundred  and  seventy-two  and  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-three. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Oregon 
the  sum  of  seventy  thousand  two  hundred  and  sixty-eight  dollars  and  eight 


286 

cents,  in  full  for  moneys  paid  by  said  State  in  suppressing  Modoc  Indian 
hostilities  during  the  Modoc  war,  and  in  defending  the  State  from  invasion 
by  said  Indians,  during  the  years  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-two  and 
eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-three;  the  said  sum  of  seventy  thousand  two 
hundred  and  sixty-eight  dollars  and  eight  cents  is  hereby  appropriated  for 
such  purpose  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 


Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.    Senate.    Report  No.  114. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  February  2,  1882 — Ordered  to  be 
printed. 

Mr.  Harrison,  from  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  submitted  the 
following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  S.  145.] 

The  Military  Committee,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (S.  145)  to  reim- 
burse the  State  of  Oregon  for  moneys  paid  by  said  State  in  the  suppression 
of  Indian  hostilities  during  the  Modoc  war  in  the  years  1872  and  1873, 
respectfully  report : 

That  by  an  Act  of  Congress  passed  June  18,  1874,  the  Secretary  of 
War  was  required  "to  ascertain  the  amount  of  expenses  claimed  to  be 
necessarily  incurred  by  the  States  of  Oregon  and  California,  or  the  citizens 
thereof  for  arms,  ammunition,  supplies,  transportation,  and  services  of  the 
volunteer  forces  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  said  States  in  the 
years  1872  and  1873,  and  report  the  same  to  Congress  at  the  next  session, 
together  with  the  names  of  persons  who  claim  to  be  entitled  to  relief,  together 
with  a  statement  of  the  facts  and  sums  upon  which  such  report  may  be 
based." 

In  obedience  to  the  requirements  of  this  Act,  the  Secretary  of  War  on  the 
twentieth  June,  1874,  issued  an  order  detailing  Inspector-General  James 
A.  Hardie  to  make  the  examination  and  report  called  for  by  the  Act.  On 
the  twentieth  November,  1874,  General  Hardie  submitted  his  report  to  the 
Secretary  of  War,  who  on  the  fifteenth  December  following  transmitted  it 
to  Congress,  and  the  same  was  published  as  Ex.  Doc.  45,  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, second  session  Forty-third  Congress.  From  this  report  it  appears 
that  a  thorough  examination  was  made  on  the  ground  of  all  the  claims  pre- 
sented. The  necessity  for  calling  out  the  State  troops  of  Oregon  to  aid  the 
troops  of  the  United  States  in  protecting  the  settlers  and  in  suppressing  the 
Indian  outbreak  cannot,  the  committee  think,  be  questioned.  These  State 
troops  reported  to  and  in  the  main  acted  under  the  orders  of  the  officers  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  committee  think  that  the  State  should  be  paid 
the  reasonable  expenses  incident  to  the  service  of  these  troops. 

The  rules  adopted  by  General  Hardie  in  arriving  at  the  proper  amount 
to  be  paid  to  the  State  of  Oregon  are  thus  stated  by  him  in  his  report : 

In  this  condition  of  things  it  would  seem  fair  that  the  United  States  should  pay  into  the 
State  Treasury  the  amount  of  the  obligations  of  the  State  for  the  purchase  of  arms  and 
munitions,  cavalry  and  quartermaster  horses,  and  military  supplies;. for  transportation, 
forage,  medical  attendance,  and  the  necessary  citizens'  labor  employed,  at  such  rates  as 
the  United  States  was  paying  on  the  spot  at  the  time.  On  account  of  jjay  of  troops  the 
reimbursement  can  only  reasonably  extend  to  such  an  amount  as  the  United  States  would 
have  paid  the  same  officers  and  the  same  men  had  they  been  mustered  into  the  service. 
For  the  hire  of  the  cavalry  horses  upon  which  the  troops  were  mounted  the  United  States' 
scale  of  commutation  should  be  allowed.  For  subsistence  the  number  of  rations  which 
the  troops  would  have  consumed  had  they  been  regularly  mustered  into  the  service,  com- 


287 

muted  at  the  cost  price  of  the  ration  where  they  served,  fixes  the  rate  of  reimbursement. 
For  the  clothing  an  amount  should  be  reimbursed  the  State  equal  to  the  usual  commuta- 
tion allowance  of  clothing  to  volunteers  when  called  into  service. 

We  think  this  basis  of  adjustment  right.  The  law  of  the  State  of  Ore- 
gon in  force  at  the  time  expressly  provided  that  the  militia  when  called 
into  service  should  receive  the  compensation  allowed  by  law  to  the  troops 
of  the  United  States.  After  carefully  examining  each  claim  and  rejecting 
such  as  did  not  come  within  the  rules  we  have  stated,  and  such  as  were  not 
sufficiently  proved,  General  Hardie  reports  that  the  amount  due  to  the  State 
of  Oregon  on  account  of  the  service  of  the  State  troops  in  the  years  1872 
and  1873  in  connection  with  what  is  known  as  the  Modoc  war,  and  includ- 
ing all  expenses  incident  to  such  service,  is  the  sum  of  $70,268  08.  The 
committee  believe  this  sum  to  be  fairly  due  to  the  State  of  Oregon  and  rec- 
ommend that  the  bill  be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "  one  hundred 
and  thirty-one  thousand  dollars,"  wherever  they  appear  in  the  bill,  and 
inserting  in  lieu  thereof  the  words  *' seventy  thousand  two  hundred  and 
sixty-eight  dollars  and  eight  cents,"  and  as  thus  amended  we  recommend 
the  passage  of  the  bill. 

EXHIBIT  No.  5. 

AN  ACT 

To  reimburse  the  State  of  Oregon  and  State  of  California,  and  the  citizens 
thereof  for  moneys  'paid  by  said  States  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostil- 
ities during  the  Modoc  war,  in  the  years  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-two 
and  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-three. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Oregon 
the  sum  of  seventy  thousand  two  hundred  and  sixty-eight  dollars  and  eight 
cents,  in  full  for  moneys  paid  by  said  State  in  suppressing  Modoc  Indian 
hostilities  during  the  Modoc  war,  and  in  defending  the  State  from  invasion 
by  said  Indians,  during  the  years  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-two  and 
eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-three;  the  said  sum  of  seventy  thousand 
two  hundred  and  sixty-eight  dollars  and  eight  cents  is  hereby  appropriated 
for  such  purpose  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appro- 
priated. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby 
authorized  and  required  to  pay  to  the  State  of  California,  and  to  the 
citizens  thereof,  or  to  their  heirs,  legal  representatives,  or  assignees,  the  sum 
of  four  thousand  four  hundred  and  forty-one  dollars  and  thirty-three  cents, 
for  arms,  ammunition,  supplies,  transportation,  and  services  of  the  volun- 
teer forces  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  said  State  in  the  years 
eighteen  hundred  and  seventy -two  and  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-three, 
and  as  the  same  were  specifically  reported  to  Congress  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  December  fifteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-four,  in  his  report 
transmitted  to  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  Modoc  war  claims  of 
California  and  Oregon,  and  as  found  due  and  reported  to  said  Secretary  by 
General  James  A.  Hardie,  United  States  Army,  November  twentieth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-four;  and  said  sum  is  hereby  appropriated 


288 

for  the  purpose  aforesaid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise 
appropriated. 

Approved  January  6,  1883. 

United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  page  399,  chap.  12. 


EXHIBIT  No.  6. 

Treasury  Department,  Third  Auditor's  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  June  23,  1886.         | 

Sir:  As  requested  in  your  letter  of  the  seventeenth  instant,  I  inclose 
herewith  statement  of  the  account  of  the  State  of  California,  for  expenses 
incurred  by  said  State  during  the  "  Modoc  Indian  War." 

The  amount  was  credited  the  State  under  Act  of  Congress,  approved 
January  6, 1883,  and  applied  to  the  sum  of  $7,588  98*,  delinquent  and  due 
on  account  of  direct  tax. 

Very  respectfully,  etc., 

JNO.  S.  WILLIARD,  Auditor. 

Jno.  S.  Mullan,  Esq.,  No.  1310  Conn.  Ave.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

*  Should  be  $7,093  26. 


Memorand^im  of  Ainounts  paid  by  the  State  of  California  for  Transportation  of  Arms,  etc.y 
during  the  years  1873  and  187 If.    Expenses  occasioned  by  the  "  Modoc  War.^^ 

Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  January  10,  1873.  Transportation  of  four  cases  arms  and  four 
boxes  ammunition  from  Sacramento  to  Reno.  1,460  pounds,  at  three-quarters 
cents  per  pound— $47  45;  also  amount  paid  Thos.  Skadden  on  the  above  from 
Reno  to  Dorris  Bridge— $87  84.    Total.... $135  29 

Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.    March  3,  1873.    Transportation  of  arms  to  Siskiyou.. 186  75 

Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  May  21,  1873.  Transportation  of  eight  cases  of  arms  to  Red- 
ding  ..: 45  10 

Johnson  &  Hearn  (Redding).  June  6,  1873.  Transportation  of  arms  from  Sacra- 
mento to  Scott's  Bar 66  00 

Central  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  June  20,  1874.  Transportation  of  arms,  etc.,  from  Scott's 
Bar  to  Sacramento 62  58 

Total $495  72 

Treasury  Department,  Third  Auditor's  Office,  June  23,  1886. 

LEE  W.  FUNK. 


EXIHIBITS 


INDIAN  WAE  CLAIM. 


19 


EXHIBIT  No.  1. 

[Copy.] 

State  of  California,  Executive  Department, 
Sacramento,  Cal.,  July  12,  1882. 

Captain  John  Mullan,   Washington,  D.  C. : 

Dear  Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  favor  of  the  twenty-second  ultimo,  relative  to 
certain  claims  of  this  State  against  the  United  States,  for  money  expended 
and  indebtedness  assumed  in  repelling  invasions,  suppressing  insurrec- 
tions and  Indian  hostilities,  I  hereby  authorize  you,  on  behalf  of  the  State 
of  California,  to  represent  the  same  in  endeavoring  to  recover  such  amount 
as  may  be  found  due  and  owing  by  the  United  States  Government  to  the 
State  of  California,  on  the  express  condition  stated  in  your  communication 
of  the  twenty-second  ultimo. 

Very  respectfully, 

GEORGE  C.  PERKINS, 

Governor  of  California. 


EXHIBIT  No.  2. 

REPORT  OF  THE  JOINT  COMMITTEE  OF  THE    SENATE   AND 
ASSEMBLY  ON  THE  INDIAN  WAR  INDEBTEDNESS. 

Sacramento,  February  21,  1872. 
Mr.  President:  The  Committee  on  Claims  of  both  Houses,  to  whom  was 
referred  the  matter  of  the  Indian  war  indebtedness  of  the  State,  beg  leave 
to  submit  the  following  report: 

HISTORY   OF   THE    INDEBTEDNESS. 

Being  impressed  with  the  belief  that  a  complete  history  of  the  matter  is 
necessary  to  its  perfect  comprehension,  we  have  deemed  it  proper  to  com- 
mence at  the  beginning  and  trace  its  various  fortunes  up  to  the  present 
time. 

The  war  bonds  of  1851  were  issued  in  pursuance  of  the  Act  of  February 
15,  1851  (Statutes  of  1851,  page  520),  the  first  section  of  which  reads  as 
follows: 

Section  1.  By  virtue  of  the  power  given  to  the  Legislature  by  the  Constitution  of  this 
State,  Article  VIII— in  case  of  war  to  repel  invasion  or  suppress  insurrection— a  loan  not 
exceeding  $500,000  is  hereby  authorized  to  be  negotiated  upon  the  faith  and  credit  of  the 
State,  payable  in  ten  years,  and  at  any  period  after  five  years  at  the  pleasure  of  the  State; 
said  loan  to  bear  a  rate  of  interest  not  exceeding  twelve  per  cent  per  annum,  payable 
annually  or  semi-annually,  at  such  place  as  the  contracting  parties  may  agree;  provided, 
however,  that  the  interest  of  the  first  year  may  be  paid  in  advance  out  of  the  loan  thus 
made. 

The  interest  was  made  payable  semi-annually,  and  fell  due  in  March  and 
September  of  each  year. 


292 

The  bonds  of  1852  were  issued  in  pursuance  of  the  Act  of  May  3,  1852 
(Statutes  1852,  page  59),  the  first  section  of  which  reads  as  follows: 

Section  1.  A  sum  not  exceeding  $600,000  is  hereby  appropriated  and  set  aside  as  an 
additional  War  Fund,  payable  in  ten  years  out  of  any  moneys  which  may  be  appropriated 
by  Congress  to  defray  the  expenses  incurred  by  the  State  of  California,  and  interest 
thereon  at  the  rate  of  seven  (7)  per  cent  per  annum,  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostili- 
ties, or  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  any  public  lands  which  may  be  donated  or  set 
aside  by  Congress  for  that  purpose;  and  should  no  such  appropriation  or  donation  be 
made,  or  if  an  amount  sufficient  should  not  be  appropriated  or  donated  within  the  said 
ten  years,  then  the  bonds  authorized  to  be  issued  by  this  Act  shall  be  good  and  valid 
claims  against  the  State,  and  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  Treasury  not  other- 
wise appropriated,  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  expeditions  mentioned  in  this  Act. 

The  interest  was  made  payable  in  annual  installments,  and  fell  due  in 
January  of  each  year. 

Under  this  Act  further  appropriations  were  made  in  1853,  as  follows: 

By  Act  of  16th  April $23,000 

By  Act  of  16th  April 2,500 

By  Act  of  18th  May 23,000 

It  is  thus  seen  that  by  the  Act  of  1851  the  bonds  were  issued  upon 
the  same  terms  as  other  bonds,  and  that  by  the  Act  of  1852  the  State 
expressly  bound  herself  to  pay  them,  if  the  General  Government  did  not. 

The  bonds  of  1857  were  issued  on  far  different  terms,  as  the  following 
section  from  the  Act  authorizing  their  issue  will  show  (Statutes  1857,  page 
262): 

Section  1.  A  sum  not  exceeding  $410,000  is  hereby  appropriated  and  set  apart  as  a 
"War  Fund,"  payable  out  of  any  moneys  that  may  be  appropriated  by  Congress  to  this 
State,  to  defray  the  expenses  incurred  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities,  as  specified 
in  this  Act. 

The  bondholders  therefore  took  these  bonds  with  the  express  understand- 
ing that  they  must  look  to  the  General  Government  for  their  redemption'. 
It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  an  appropriation  was  made  by  Act  of  Congress, 
March  2,  1861  (Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XII,  page  199),  for  this  purpose. 
The  money  was  paid  into  the  State  Treasury,  and  the  matter  is  at  an  end. 

We  have  only,  then,  to  deal  with  the  issue  of  1851  and  1852.  An  appro- 
priation to  pay  these  bonds  with  interest  was  made  by  Congress,  August  5, 
1854,  in  the  following  terms  (Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  X,  page  583): 

Section  1.  And  he  it  further  enacted,  that  the  Secretary  of  War  be  and  he  is  hereby 
authorized  and  directed  to  examine  into  and  ascertain  the  amount  of  expenses  incurred 
by  the  State  of  California  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  within  the  said  State 
prior  to 'the  first  day  of  January,  Anno  Domini  1854,  and  that  the  amount  of  such 
expenses,  when  so  ascertained,  be  paid  into  the  Treasury,  of  said  State ;  provided,  that  the 
sum  so  paid  shall  not  exceed  in  amount  the  sum  of  $924,259  65,  which  amount  is  hereby 
appropriated  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

On  May  4, 1855  (Statutes  1855,  page  241),  the  Legislature  passed  an  Act 
for  the  purpose  of  utilizing  this  appropriation,  the  Act  in  substance  pro- 
viding for  the  surrender  of  the  war  bonds  of  1851  and  1852,  it  being  thought 
at  that  time  that  the  whole  amount  appropriated  by  Congress  would  be 
paid  into  the  State  Treasury.  In  this  the  State  and  bondholders  were  mis- 
taken, as  the  following  extracts  from  the  message  of  Governor  Bigler  will 
show  (Senate  Journal,  seventh  session,  page  27): 

By  reference  to  pages  582  and  583  of  the  United  States  "Statutes  at  Large"  of  1854,  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  section  numbered  three  [9]  of  the  Act  making  appropriations  for  the 
support  of  the  army,  directs  the  Secretary  of  War  "  to  examine  into  and  ascertain  the 


293 

amount  of  expenses  incurred  and  now  actually  'paid  by  the  State  of  California  in  the  sup- 
pression of  Indian  hostilities  within  the  said  iState  prior  to  the  first  day  of  January,  A.  D. 
1854,  and  that  the  amount  of  such  expenses,  when  so  ascertained,  be  paid  into  the  Treas- 
ury of  the  said  State." 

tn  compliance  with  the  provision  of  law  above  c[uoted,  the  Act  of  last  session  was 
passed,  and  statements  certified  by  the  proper  constitutional  officers,  duly  forwarded  by 
me  to  Washington  City,  under  the  impression  that  nothing  further  w^as  necessary  or 
requisite  under  the  law  of  Congress,  to  authorize  the  prompt  and  immediate  payment  into 
the  State  Treasury  of  the  sum  appropriated  by  Congress. 

This  impression,  however,  it  seems  w^as  incorrect,  and  the  Secretary  of  War  positively 
refused  to  pay  to  the  State  the  amount  due  and  appropriated  until  he  shall  have  examined 
the  accounts  and  vouchers  on  which  the  original  warrants  or  bonds  were  issued. 

These  accounts  and  vouchers,  it  is  projjer  here  to  remark,  are  a  part  of  the  archives  of 
the  State,  and  as  such  are  required  to  be  kept  at  the  seat  of  government,  as  constituting 
not  only  a  complete  history  and  expose  of  the  several  Indian  wars,  but  as  a  basis  of  the 
action  of  the  Controller  and  Board  of  Commissioners  of  the  War  Debt,  and  as  such  their 
proper  place  is  among  the  records  of  the  State. 

Under  the  law  no  officer  of  the  Government  has  the  right,  if  he  so  desired,  to  remove 
them  without  express  legislative  authority,  either  for  the  satisfaction  or  information  of  an 
officer  of  the  Federal  Government,  or  for  any  other  purpose  whatever. 

The  law  of  Congress  which  was  intended  to  govern  the  action  of  the  Secretary  of  War, 
in  my  opinion,  does  not  require  his  examination  into  the  propriety  or  necessity  of  any  or 
all  of  the  expenditures  of  the  State  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities;  taut  directs 
him  to  "  examine  into  and  ascertain  the  amount  of  expenses  incurred  and  actually  paid,''^  and 
upon  such  ascertainment  to  pay  the  same  into  the  Treasury  of  the  State  of  California; 
provided  such  amount  should  not  exceed  the  sum  of  $924,259  65. 

The  Secretary  of  War,  however,  has  deemed  it  his  duty  to  require  the  original  vouchers 
and  papers,  and  to  refuse  payment  of  the  amount  appropriated  until  they  shall  have  been 
furnished. 

Although  fixed  in  the  belief  that  so  far  as  the  State  of  California  is  concerned  the 
requirements  of  the  law  of  Congress  on  the  subject  have  been,  on  her  part,  fully  complied 
with,  and  that  the  Secretary  of  War,  having  from  statements  authenticated  by' the  proper 
State  officers  ''ascertained  the  amount  actually  paid,^^  should  without  further  question  or 
delay,  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  Congress,  have  paid  the  amount  appropriated  "  into 
the  Treasury  of  the  State  of  California,"  it  is  neither  my  intention  nor  desire  in  this  com- 
munication to  call  in  question  or  advert  to  the  propriety  of  justice  of  the  action  of  the 
Secretary  of  War  in  the  premises,  further  than  to  dissent  from  the  correctness  of  his 
decision,  as  being,  in  my  opinion,  unwarranted  by  the  language  of  the  Act  of  Congress 
making  the  appropriation,  and  also  to  express  sincere  regret  that  months  of  delay  in  pay- 
ment must,  under  the  circumstances,  necessarily  ensue,  burdening  the  State  with  a  large 
sum  in  the  shape  of  interest  on  the  outstanding  war  bonds  and  warrants. 

Without  further  comment,  the  whole  subject  is  commended  to  your  careful  consideration, 
for  such  action  in  the  premises  as,  under  all  the  circumstances,  may  by  you  be  deemed 
proj)er  and  necessary  to  secure  to  California  the  prompt  payment  of  the  amount  long 
since  ordered  by  Act  of  Congress  into  the  Treasury  of  the  State. 

In  accordance  with  resolutions  of  both  branches  of  the  Legislature, 
requesting  from  the  Governor  such  information  as  was  in  his  hands  regarding 
the  condition  of  the  war  debt,  and  its  payment  by  the  General  Government, 
Governor  Johnson  transmitted  a  message  to  the  Legislature  on  the  thirty- 
first  of  January,  1856,  an  extract  from  which  is  given  as  follows  (Senate 
Journal,  seventh  session,  page  226): 

It  is  needless  to  inquire  whether  the  Secretary  of  War  has  misapprehended  the  spirit 
and  intent  of  the  Act  of  Congress  making  the  appropriation,  in  rejecting  the  certified 
copies  of  vouchers  forwarded  him,  as  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  payments  made  by  the 
State;  neither  at  this  time  can  any  beneficial  results  attend  the  discussion  of  an  issue 
seemingly  foreshadowed  by  the  Secretary's  letter,  involving  a  construction  of  the  law 
which  would  invest  him  with  discretionary  power  to  allow  or  reject  at  j^leasure  specific 
items  of  expenditure  which  have  been  assumed  by  the  State.  I  must  confess,  however, 
that  an  assumption  of  authority  so  unwarranted  as  I  believe  this  to  be  is  quite  manifest, 
and  I  am  apprehensive  that  the  aid  of  further  Congressional  legislation  will  have  to  be 
invoked  ere  our  State  will  derive  the  benefits  of  the  entire  sum  appropriated. 

If  the  Secretary  of  War  shall,  by  virtue  of  the  authority  given  him  to  examine  into 
these  claims,  assert  the  right  to  go  behind  the  act  of  the  Board  of  Examiners,  and  inquire 
whether  the  demands  were  such  as  ought  to  have  been  allowed,  and  the  evidence  on  which 
the  payments  were  predicated,  as  appears  of  record,  sufficient  to  sustain  their  decision,  I 
doubt  not  that  the  exacting  requirements  of  the  Secretary  and  his  auditing  officers  would 
find  abundant  pretexts  to  reduce  the  sum  materially. 

In  the  various  military  expeditions  which  California,  in  defense  of  her  citizens,  was 
compelled  to  undertake,  either  from  inability  or  neglect  of  the  General  Government  to 
provide  such  defense — owing  to  the  condition  of  the  country  at  those  periods — with  our 


294 

state  credit  most  ruinously  depreciated,  prices  were  paid  for  supplies,  and  many  expenses 
incurred,  which  to  us  even  now  would  appear  enormous. 

Furthermore,  in  the  settlement  of  accounts  by  the  Board  of  Examiners,  and  in  some 
few  instances  before  committees  of  the  Legislature,  the  introduction  of  oral  testimony  on 
behalf  of  claimants  was  permitted,  which,  no  doubt,  to  them  was  conclusive;  but,  unfor- 
tunately, the  evidence  was  not  perpetuated. 

From  these  and  other  causes  we  may  be  much  embarrassed  if  the  exercise  of  such  dis- 
cretionary power  shall  be  persisted  in.  Whilst,  therefore,  hoping  our  fears  may  prove 
groundless,  still  these  misgivings  should  suggest  to  our  minds  the  necessity  of  extreme 
caution  and  deliberation  regarding  the  measures  now  to  be  adopted. 

Let  us  so  fortify  ourselves  against  all  possible  contingencies  that  further  delay  in  securing 
the  payment  of  this  money  may  not  be  the  fruits  of  our  own  inefficient  legislation. 

In  the  first  place  authorit}'  should  be  given  to  transmit  to  the  Secretary  of  War  the 
original  vouchers,  and  at  a  reasonable  expenditure  secure  the  services  of  such  person  or 
persons  as  may  be  necessary  in  the  prosecution  of  these  claims  before  that  officer.  One 
of  our  present  members  of  Congress,  General  J.  W.  Denver,  and  of  him  I  speak  particu- 
larly, on  account  of  his  former  position  as  one  of  the  Board  of  Examiners,  will,  no  doubt, 
lend  his  cooperation  without  compensation  by  the  State.  Such  assistance  will  be  all 
important,  as  a  very  large  portion  of  these  claims  were  examined  before  him  and  allowed, 
and  he  is,  consequently,  possessed  of  an  intimate  knowledge  of  all  matters  connected  with 
this  indebtedness.  There  is  another  gentleman,  however,  A.  J.  F.  Phelan,  whose  services 
are  indispensably  necessary  to  the  successful  prosecution  of  these  claims.  In  this  I  speak 
partially  from  my  own  personal  knowledge  as  well  as  from  the  testimony  of  the  late 
Board  of  Examiners,  to  whose  efficiency  and  understanding  of  the  whole  subject  they 
voluntarily  bear  witness. 

Mr.  Phelan  was  the  Clerk  of  that  Board  for  nearly,  if  not  quite,  the  entire  period  during 
which  the  seven  per  cent  bonds  were  being  issued,  and  from  his  position  necessarily 
became  familiar  with  all  the  vouchers  and  testimony  adduced  in  support  of  the  claims 

8 resented;  and  his  usefulness  to  the  State  in  connection  with  these  claims  against  the 
overnment  can  be  readily  foreseen;  and  I  would,  therefore,  suggest  that  his  services  be 
secured,  which  I  am  advised  by  him  can  be  effected  on  terms  quite  reasonable  to  the  State. 

From  the  foregoing  it  is  plain  that  additional  legislation  was  absolutely 
necessary,  and  thereupon  followed  the  Act  of  April  19, 1856  (Statutes  1856, 
page  206),  which  created  the  "Board  of  War  Debt  Commissioners,"  and 
defined  their  powers  and  duties.  By  the  terms  of  this  Act  Samuel  B. 
Smith  and  J.  W.  Denver  were  appointed  a  Board  of  Commissioners  to 
prosecute  before  the  Secretary  of  War  the  claims  of  the  State  subject  to  be 
paid  out  of  the  appropriation  above  set  forth.  The  Act  then  proceeds  to 
define  their  duties  in  the  matter  of  advertising  for  bids  for  surrender  of  the 
bonds  of  1851  and  1852 — the  former  to  have  the  preference.  This  was  done 
to  secure  the  payment  of  those  bonds  in  full  in  case  the  appropriation 
should  be  deficient,  which  it  might  well  have  been  had  payments  been 
made  up  to  the  time  of  presentation.  It  was  expected  by  the  Legislature 
that  payment  would  be  so  made,  for  Section  5  provides  that  the  Commis- 
sioners shall  "  examine  and  compute  the  amount  of  principal  and  interest 
due  up  to  time  of  presentation  for  redemption,  if  before  the  period  indicated 
when  they  shall  cease  to  bear  interest;  otherwise  at  the  period  so  indicated." 
This  Act  of  the  Legislature  was  followed  by  the  following  Congressional 
enactment  (Statutes  at  Large  XI,  page  91): 

Section  8.  And  he  it  further  enacted,  that  the  Secretary  of  War  is  hereby  authorized 
and  directed  to  pay  to  the  holders  of  the  war  bonds  of  the  State  of  California  the  amount 
of  money  appropriated  by  Act  of  Congress  approved  May  [August]  5. 1854,  in  payment  of 
expenses  incurred  and  now  actually  paid  by  the  State  of  California  for  the  suppression  of 
Indian  hostilities  within  the  said  State  prior  to  the  first  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1854,  under 
the  following  restrictions  and  regulations:  before  any  bonds  shall  be  redeemed  by  the 
Secretary  of  War  they  shall  be  presented  to  the  Board  of  Commissioners  appointed  by 
the  Legislature  of  said  State,  by  an  Act  approved  April  19,  185B,  and  the  amount  due  and 
payable  upon  each  bond  be  indorsed  thereon  by  said  Commissioners.  Upon  presentation 
to  the  Secretary  of  War  of  any  bond  or  bonds  thus  indorsed  it  shall  be  his  duty  to  draw 
his  warrant  in  favor  of  the  holder  or  holders  thereof  for  the  amount  certified  to  be  due 
upon  the  same  by  the  said  Commissioners  upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who  is 
hereby  directed  to  pay  the  same;  j^fovided,  that  said  amount  in  the  aggregate  "shall  not 
exceed  the  amount  of  money  appropriated  by  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  5,  1854; 
said  bonds,  after  redemption,  and  after  taking  off  the  coupons  that  may  remain  unpaid, 
shall  be  delivered  to  the  Secretary  of  War  to  be  canceled. 


295 

The  Commissioners  were  met  at  the  threshold  by  an  unforeseen  com- 
phcation,  which  rendered  it  impossible  for  them  to  comply  strictly  with 
the  terms  of  the  Act  of  the  Legislature;  for  by  that  Act  they  were  com- 
pelled, as  has  been  seen,  to  allow  interest  up  to  the  time  of  presentation  of 
the  bonds,  while  by  the  ruling  of  the  Third  Auditor,  which  ruling  was 
affirmed  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  interest  could  only  be  allowed  up  to  the 
first  of  January,  1854.  Thus  it  happened  that  no  provision  was  made  for 
the  interest  between  that  time  and  September  1,  1856,  when  the  Commis- 
sioners advertised  for  surrender  of  bonds.  The  ruling  of  the  Third  Audi- 
tor rendered  it  unnecessary,  as  the  Commissioners  truly  say,  to  give  prefer- 
ence to  the  bonds  of  1851,  for  by  only  paying  interest  up  to  January  1, 
1854,  the  Congressional  appropriation  would  be  more  than  sufficient  for  the 
purpose.  In  order  to  present  this  matter  in  its  clearest  light,  we  give 
below  the  decision  of  the  Third  Auditor,  with  that  of  the  Secretary  of 
War,  in  affirmation  (Report  of  Committee  on  Finance,  in  Appendix  to 
Senate  and  Assembly  Journal,  fourteenth  session) : 


Treasuky  Department,  Third  Auditor's  Office, 

September  3,  1856. 


} 

Hon.  Jefferson  Davis,  Secretary  of  War 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  herewith  for  your  consideration  and  decision  a  commu- 
nication addressed  to  me  to-da^  by  J.  W.  Denver  and  Samuel  B.  Smith,  Esqs.,  Cahfornia 
War  Debt  Commissioners,  inclosing  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  them  to  you  of  the  thirtieth 
ultimo. 

In  these  communications  the  Commissioners  raise  two  points  relative  to  the  payment 
of  the  war  bonds  issued  by  the  State  of  California,  the  redemption  of  which  is  provided 
for  by  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  of  August,  1854,  and  eighteenth  of  August,  1856,  to  wit: 

First — Whether  interest  upon  the  bonds  will  be  allowed  for  any  time  beyond  the  first 
day  of  January,  1854,  to  which  it  is  calculated. 

Second — Whether  any  war  bonds  will  be  redeemed  (upon  Commissioners  certifying 
them  to  be  genuine,  due,  and  payable)  that  were  issued  by  the  State  of  California  in  the 
years  i854  and  1855,  in  payment  of  expenses  incurred  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostil- 
ities in  said  State;  or,  m  other  words,  whether  the  money  appropriated  by  the  Act  of 
Congress  of  the  fifth  of  August.  1854,  can  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  indebtedness 
accruing  against  the  State  of  California,  either  as  principal  or  interest,  since  the  first  day 
of  January,  1854,  the  same  not  having  been  included  in  the  estimate  on  which  the  appropriation 
was  madef 

In  submitting  these  points,  I  take  the  liberty  of  expressing  the  following  opinion : 

First — If  the  result  of  the  investigation  now  going  on  in  this  office  shall  show  that  the 
sum  appropriated  by  the  Act  of  1854  will  be  sufficient  to  pay  the  principal  of  the  seven 
and  twelve  per  cent  war  bonds  and  interest  beyond  the  first  day  of  January,  1854,  then, 
in  my  judgment,  such  interest  can  be  paid  to  the  extent  of  the  appropriation,  up  to  and 
not  beyond  the  fifth  of  August,  1854,  the  day  the  law  was  approved  by  the  President ; 
otherwise,  not.  But  if  the  appropriation  shall  turn  out  to  be  insufficient  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  bonds,  with  interest,  to  the  first  day  of  January,  1854,  then,  in  my  opinion,, 
they  be  paid  pro  rata  to  the  extent  of  the  appropriation. 

Second — The  admission  of  the  Commissioners,  that  the  war  bonds  issued  in  1854  and 
1855,  either  principal  or  interest,  were  not  included  in  the  estimate  upon  which  the  appro- 
priation was  made  in  the  Act  of  the  fifth  of  August,  1854,  is,  in  my  judgment,  conclusive 
on  this  point. 

I  cannot  see  how  the  amount  thus  appropriated  can  be  applied  to  any  object  outside 
the  estimate  upon  which  it  was  based,  unless  expressly  directed  by  the  supplemental 
Act  of  the  eighteenth  of  August,  1856. 

The  latter  Act  contains  no  such  special  direction,  and  the  bonds  issued  in  1854  and 
1855,  are  therefore  clearly  excluded  from  all  the  benefits  of  the  original  appropriation. 

1  am,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  H.  S.  TAYLOR,  Acting  Auditor. 

The  following  is  the  decision  of  the  honorable  Secretary  of  War  upon 
the  foregoing  report: 

I  concur  in  the  view  of  the  Third  Auditor,  as  to  the  date  to  which  interest  may  be 
calculated,  and  entertain  no  doubt  as  to  the  inapplicability  of  the  appropriation  to  bonds 
issued  after  the  date  of  the  Appropriation  Act  of  August  5,  1854.  as  it  provided  only  for 
expenses  which  had  been  incurred  prior  to  the  first  of  January,  1854,  in  the  suppression 
of  Indian  hostilities  within  the  State  of  California.    Should  the  appropriation  be  inade- 


296 

quate  to  meet  the  obligation  for  which  it  was  provided,  then  it  will,  of  coiirse,  be  necessary 
to  pay  pro  rata. 

JEFFERSON  DAVIS,  Secretary  of  War. 
War  Department,  September  4,  1856. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  Commissioners  were  precluded  from  complying 
with  the  strict  terms  of  the  law  under  which  they  were  authorized  to  act, 
and  that  they  were  thus  reduced  to  the  alternative  of  carrying  out  their 
instructions  as  nearly  as  possible  or  of  throwing  up  their  trust,  and  thus 
saddling  the  State  with  a  burden  of  constantly  accruing  interest.  That 
they  did  wisely  in  accepting  the  former  alternative  your  committee  have 
little  doubt. 

In  order,  however,  to  make  the  action  of  the  Commissioners  perfectly 
clear,  we  have  deemed  it  best  to  give  their  two  reports  in  full,  with  the 
exception  of  the  tables  annexed  to  them.  Their  first  report  can  be  found 
on  page  six  hundred  and  eighteen  of  Senate  Journal,  thirteenth  session, 
where  it  is  incorporated  in  report  of  Senate  Finance  Committee.  Their 
second  report  is  in  Appendix  to  Senate  Journal,  eleventh  session: 

REPORT   OF  COMMISSIONERS  OF  CALIFORNIA  WAR  DEBT. 

To  his  Excellency  J.  Neely  Johnson,  Governor  of  the  State  of  California: 

Sir:  The  Commissioners  appointed  by  the  Act  of  Aptil  19,  1856,  to  liquidate  the  war 
debt  of  the  State,  beg  leave  to  report: 

That  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  said  Act,  so  soon  after  the  same  as  practica- 
ble they  opened  an  office  in  the  City  of  Washington  and  made  application  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  War,  as  by  said  Act  directed,  for  payment  of  the  sum  of  money  appropriated  by 
Congress  in  payment  of  expenses  incurred  "  by  the  State  in  suppression  of  Indian  hostil- 
ities." As  evidence  of  said  indebtedness  the  Commissioners  submitted  a  certified  copy  of 
the  War  Bond  Register  of  said  State,  the  various  Acts  of  the  Legislature  authorizing  the 
issuance  of  said  bonds,  and  the  Journals  of  the  Legislature  exhibiting  the  action  of  that 
body  in  relation  to  the  same;  proposing,  further,  to  deliver  him  the  bonds  issued  by  the 
State  before  making  requisition  for  said  money.  In  reply,  the  Secretary  of  War  stated  in 
substance  that  the  proofs  submitted  were  insufficient;  that  he  could  not  recognize  the 
bonds  as  evidence  of  the  indebtedness,  but  that  the  Act  of  Congress  of  August  5,  1854, 
under  which  Act  the  appropriation  was  made,  would  require  him"  to  go  into  an  examina- 
tion of  the  original  vouchers.  As  this  course  of  procedure  would  have  involved  great 
delay  and  difficulty,  and  being  satisfied  from  the  condition  of  the  original  vouchers, 
which  were  in  very  "many  instances  informal,  that  a  large  portion  of  them  would  be  dis- 
allowed, we  applied  to  Congress  for  relief,  and  a  bill  was  introduced  at  our  instance 
directing  the  Secretary  of  War  to  pay  over  the  full  amount  of  the  appropriation  as 
directed  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California.  The  bill  meeting  with  violent 
opposition  influenced  to  a  great  extent  by  the  holders  of  the  seven  per  cent  bonds,  who 
felt  aggrieved  at  the  manner  of  distributing  the  appropriation  directed  by  said  Act,  and 
being  unwilling  to  give  our  sanction  to  any  Congressional  action  which  might  clash  with 
the  Act  of  the  State  of  California,  we  finally  submitted  to  the  Secretary  of  War  all  the 
books  and  original  papers  in  our  possession,  offering  to  make  all  necessary  explanation, 
etc.  As  we  had  anticipated,  the  examination  was  delayed,  and  after  several  interviews 
with  the  accounting  officers  to  whom  the  vouchers  had  been  referred  by  the  Secretary  of 
War,  and  being  convinced  that  the  interest  of  the  State  would  greatly  suffer  should  a 
settlement  be  made  upon  such  a  basis,  we  finally  agreed  with  the  bondholders  to  a  bill 
providing  a  pro  rata  distribution  of  the  appropriation,  viz. :  the  payment  of  the  principal 
of  all  the  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1854,  and  interest  on  the  same  up  to  that  date. 
This  bill  passed.  Immediately  upon  its  passage  the  Commissioners  advertised  for  the 
redemption  of  said  bonds  in  various  daily  papers,  a  list  of  which  will  be  found  in  the 
minutes  of  the  Commissioners  accompanying  this  report,  which  advertisement  directed 
that  all  bonds  should  be  presented  to  the  'Commissioners  before  the  first  day  of  Septem- 
ber, after  which  date  they  would  cease  to  bear  interest.  Upon  an  examination  of  the  Act 
we  found  a  mistake  had  occurred  which  apparently  left  to  the  Commissioners  the  power 
of  carrying  out  the  direction  of  the  State  m  the  disbursement  of  the  appropriation.  We 
immediately  applied  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  asking  his  construction  of  the  Act.  It 
will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  correspondence  which  accompanies  this  report  that  the 
Secretary  of  War  would  not  permit  any'portion  of  the  appropriation  to  be  applied  to  the 
redemption  of  bonds  issued  since  the  first  of  January,  1854.  nor  for  the  payment  of 
interest  accumulating  since  that  date  on  bonds  previously  issued.  This  construction 
rendered  it  unnecessary  to  make  any  distinction  between  the  seven  and  twelve  per  cent 
bonds,  and  superseded*  the  necessity  of  advertising  for  bids  as  directed  by  the  Act  of 
California. 

Under  the  instruction  of  the  Secretary  of  War  the  Commissioners,  as  bonds  were  pre- 


297 

sented,  certified  to  the  genuineness  of  each  bond,  and  the  amount,  principal  and  interest, 
due  thereon  up  to  the  first  day  of  January,  1854.  The  full  amount  certified  to  by  the  Com- 
missioners is  as  follows : 

Of  twelve  per  cent  bonds,  principal,  $177,000;  interest  on  the  same,  $55,683  97.  Of  seven 
per  cent  bonds,  principal,  $559,750;  interest  on  the  same,  $48,214  68.  Amounting  in  all  to 
$846,048  65 — a  full  statement  of  which  accompanies  this. 

The  full  amount  paid  by  the  United  States  Government  up  to  the  fifteenth  day  of  No- 
vember, 1856,  is  $814,456  84,"^as  appears  per  statement  of  the  Third  Auditor,  which  accompa- 
nies this,  leaving  unpaid  of  the  bonds  at  that  time  certified,  $26,191  81;  of  which,  $15,220  20 
had  been  presented  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  the  balance,  $10,971  61,  still  being  in  the  hands 
of  the  holders.  This  amount  has  no  doubt  been  paid  in  full.  The  interest  coupons 
belonging  to  all  the  bonds  presented  to  the  Commissioners  were  detached  from  the  bonds 
and  distributed  as  follows: 

Of  seven  per  cent  bonds,  coupons  one  and  two,  up  to  January  1,  1854,  were  attached  to 
the  bonds  and  have  been  paid;  coupons  three  and  four,  up  to  January  1,  1856,  have  been 
returned  to  the  holders,  stamped  as  follows:  "California  War  Bond  Coupon."  Coupon 
number  five,  from  January  1,  1856,  to  January  1. 1857,  similarly  stamped,  with  the  amount 
of  interest  due  on  the  sanie  up  to  September  1,  1856,  also  stamped  upon  it,  has  also  been 
returned  to  the  holders.  Coupons  six,  seven,  eight,  nine,  and  ten,  representing  the  interest 
from  January  1,  1857,  to  the  maturing  of  the  bonds,  are  returned  to  the  State.  Of  twelve 
per  cent  bonds,  coupons  one,  two,  three,  four,  and  five,  representing  the  interest  up  to 
March  1,  1854,  were  attached  to  the  bonds,  but  were  paid  only  up  to  January  1,  1854,  leav- 
ing on  every  bond  a  balance  of  $20,  interest  from  January  1^  to  March  1,  1854,  due  to  the 
bondholder — for  which  amount  the  Commissioners  gave  their  certificate,  a  copy  of  which 
accompanies  this.  Coupons  six,  seven,  eight,  nine,  and  ten,  representing  the  interest  due 
up  to  September  1, 1856,  have  been  returned  to  the  owners;  and  the  remaining  coupons, 
numbers  eleven,  twelve,  thirteen,  fourteen,  fifteen,  sixteen,  seventeen,  eighteen,  and  nine- 
teen, are  returned  to  the  State. 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  are  remaining  unpaid  of  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1, 1854, 
of  principal,  $59,600 ;  of  interest  to  that  date,  about  $14,000;  total,  $73,600.  There  isVemain- 
ing  of  the  appropriation,  $83,611;  leaving  a  balance  on  hand,  over  and  above  the  bonds 
and  interest,  up  to  January  1,  1854,  of  not  less  than  $10,000. 

The  entire  amount  of  coupons  and  certificates  returned  to  holders  of  redeemed  bonds, 
and  now  outstanding,  is  $161,120  91.  The  entire  amount  of  coupons  returned  to  the  State 
is  $317,727  10.  The  bonds  redeemed  have  been  canceled,  and  are  now  on  file  in  the  Treas- 
ury Department.  The  General  Government,  by  recognizing  the  bonds,  and  by  the  pay- 
ment of  interest  up  to  January  1,  1854,  have  virtuallj'^  assumed  the  entire  debt,  and  there 
is  but  little  doubt  of  the  speedy  passage  of  an  Act  making  an  additional  appropriation  to 
cover  the  unpaid  coupons  now  outstanding,  as  well  as  the  amount  of  bonds  issued  subse- 
quent to  January  1,  1854,  a  statement  of  which  will  be  found  accompanying  this. 

We  cannot  conclude  our  report  without  expressing  our  high  appreciation  of  the  services 
of  Mr.  A.  J.  F.  Phelan,  the  Clerk  of  the  Commission.  His  thorough  knowledge  of  all  the 
details  connected  with  the  origin  of  the  war  debt,  and  his  faithfulness  and  ability  in  dis- 
charging the  onerous  duties  imposed  upon  him  by  the  State,  has  very  materially  aided  us 
in  accomplishing  all  that  has  been  effected  toward  the  extinguishment  of  the  debt. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

SAM.  B.  SMITH, 
J.  W.  DENVER, 
Commissioners  California  War  Debt. 

Sacramento  City,  January  5,  1857. 

T^INAL  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSIONERS  OF  THE  CALIFORNIA  WAR  DEBT. 

To  his  Excellency  John  G.  Downey,  Governor  of  California: 

Sir:  The  undersigned.  Commissioners  appointed  by  the  Act  of  April  19,  1856,  to  liqui- 
date the  war  debt  of  the  State,  beg  leave  to  state: 

That  since  their  last  report,  which  was  dated  January  5,  1857,  they  have  certified  for 
redemption  bonds  and  coupons  amounting  in  all  to  $57,633  14,  which,  added  to  the  amount 
then  reported— $840,648  65— makes  up  a  total  of  $898,281  79  redeemed,  leaving  a  balance 
outstanding  of  $10,950  in  bonds,  which  last  sum,  together  with  the  interest  thereon  to  the 
first  day  of  January,  1854,  is  fully  provided  for  by  the  appropriation  made  by  Congress. 
After  these  outstanding  bonds  and  coupons  shall  have  been  redeemed  there  will  still  remain 
a  balance  of  the  appropriation  unexpended  amounting  to  about  $10,000,  but  which  will  not 
be  available  to  the  State,  as  will  hereafter  be  made  to  appear.  This  excess  was  caused  by 
taking  into  the  estimate  on  which  the  appropriation  was  made  warrants  or  certificates 
issued  before  the  first  day  of  January,  1854,  and  not  funded  prior  to  that  date. 

By  reference  to  our  former  report  you  will  ascertain  the  difficulties  we  had  to  encounter 
at  Washington  when  attempting  to  discharge  the  duties  imposed  upon  us  by  the  Act  under 
which  we  were  a,pponited.  That  Act  provides  first  for  the  payment  of  the  whole  twelve 
per  cent  bonds,  with  accruing  interest  up  to  the  date  of  redemption,  and  to  advertise  for 
cjids  and  give  the  preference  to  the  lowest  bidders  among  the  hoMers  of  the  seven  per 
cent  bonds ;  but  under  the  construction  given  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  the  Acts  of 
Congress  referring  to  the  appropriation,  it  was  found  impossible  to  carry  out  these  pro- 
Visions  literally.    None  of  the  money  appropriated  could,  under  the  construction  referred 


298 

to,  be  applied  to  the  redemption  of  bonds  issued  after  the  first  day  of  January,  1854,  nor 
to  the  payment  of  interest  accruing  since  that  date.  We  had,  therefore,  to  abandon  the 
business  altogether,  or  by  conforming  to  the  opinion  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  pay  the 
principal  and  thereby  stop  the  accruing  interest. 

As  before  shown,  the  sum  appropriated  by  Congress  was  sufficient  to  pay  all  the  princi- 
pal and  interest  due  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1854.  Having  obtained  the  decision  of 
the  Secretary,  we  advertised  and  gave  notice  to  the  bondholders  that  we  were  ready  to 
redeem  the  bonds  and  coupons  due  at  that  date  (January  1,  1854),  and  that  all  bonds 
would  cease  to  bear  interest  after  the  first  day  of  September,  1856.  Accordingly  the  bond- 
holders came  forward  and  in  good  faith  gave  up  their  bonds  on  our  certificates,  and 
received  payment  thereon.  The  coupons  falling  due  between  the  first  of  January,  1854, 
and  the  first  of  September,  1856,  which  were  unprovided  for  at  the  time  the  bonds  were 
redeemed,  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  the  sum  of  $172,828  54,  were  retained  by  the 
bondholders,  but  the  coupons  which  would  have  become  due  after  the  first  day  of  Septem- 
ber, 1856,  amounting  to  the  sum  of  $344,669  17,  were  given  up,  and  are  now  in  our  posses- 
sion, less  those  attached  to  the  few  bonds  not  yet  redeemed.  By  the  course  thus  pursued, 
we  were  enabled  to  relieve  the  State  from  this  accruing  interest,  which  would,  as  shown, 
had  the  bonds  been  allowed  to  come  to  maturity,  have  increased  the  debt  $344,669  17,  and 
for  the  payment  of  which  the  faith  and  honor  of  the  State  is  pledged. 

No  provision  has  as  yet  been  made  for  the  payment  of  the  coupons  yet  outstanding, 
amounting  to  the  sum  of  $172,828  54.  The  Act  of  February  15,  1851,  under  which  the 
twelve  per  cent  bonds  were  issued,  provided  that  the  interest  should  be  "payable  annually 
or  semi-annually,"'  and  the  bonds  were  issued  wath  semi-annual  coupons  attached.  The 
Act  of  May  3,  1852,  under  which  the  seven  per  cent  bonds  were  issued,  provided  that  the 
interest  should  be  paid  annually,  and  the  bonds  were  issued  with  annual  coupons  attached. 
The  Legislature  has  never  made  provision  for  the  payment  of  any  of  this  interest,  although 
the  whole  amount  has  now  been  due  more  than  three  years. 

Good  faith  on  the  part  of  the  State  requires  that  these  coupons  should  be  redeemed, 
either  by  issuing  to  the  holders,  as  many  of  them  have  requested,  bonds  bearing  interest, 
or  by  payment  in  cash.  The  latter  course  is  preferable  if  the  condition  of  the  Treasury 
will  permit,  as  the  amount  is  long  overdue;  and  under  the  provisions  of  the  laws  author- 
izing the  issuance  of  the  bonds,  and  by  the  terms  of  the  bonds  themselves,  the  State  was 
bound  for  the  payment  long  since.  Indeed,  it  is  always  better  for  the  State  to  pay  such 
indebtedness  in  cash,  if  possible,  and  then  to  call  on  the  General  Government  for  remu- 
neration, for  by  so  doing  officers  will  be  held  to  a  more  strict  accountability,  accounts  and 
vouchers  will  be  subjected  to  a  closer  scrutiny,  and,  in  consequence,  Indian  wars  will  not 
be  too  lightly  engaged  in. 

The  coupons  heretofore  referred  to,  which  would  have  become  due  after  the  first  day  of 
September,  1856,  are  as  stated,  now  in  our  possession.  The  law  at  present  does  not  author- 
ize us  to  make  any  disposition  of  them.  We  therefore  ask  for  permission  to  turn  them 
over  to  the  State  Treasurer,  to  be  by  him  destroyed,  or  to  make  such  other  disposition  of 
them  as  the  Legislature  may  direct. 

We  also  request  that  we  may  be  relieved  from  all  further  duties  under  the  Act  by  which 
we  were  appointed.  There  are  only  twenty-nine  bonds  of  all  descriptions  now  outstand- 
ing with  which  we  would  have  anything  to  do,  and  the  duty  of  certifying  to  them  can 
very  well  be  devolved  on  some  of  the  State  officers,  to  whom  we  might  be  authorized  to 
deliver  the  books  and  papers  of  the  Commission. 

Herewith  we  submit  for  your  inspection  a  tabular  statement,  prepared  by  the  very 
efficient  Clerk  of  the  Board,  A.  J.  F.  Phelan,  Esq.,  which  will  be  found  full  arid  compre- 
hensive. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

J.  W.  DENVER, 
SAM.  B.  SMITH, 
Commissioners  California  War  Debt. 

Sacramento  City,  January  30,  1860. 

It  may  be  well  to  supplement  the  final  report  of  the  Commissioners  by 
saying  that  Congress  authorized  the  using  up  of  the  surplus  of  the  original 
appropriation  in  the  redemption  of  bonds  issued  subsequent  to  January 
1,  1854  (Statutes  at  Large,  Volume  XII,  page  104),  and  that  this  was 
done  to  the  extent  of  $7,650  of  principal  (see  official  list  in  appendix), 
with  interest  up  to  the  time  of  presentation,  leaving  a  surplus  still  of  about 
$10,000.  This  could  not  be  utilized,  because  the  estimate  on  which  the 
appropriation  was  based  included  that  amount  of  claims  which  had  not 
been  funded  by  the  State  prior  to  January  1,  1854. 

To  state  in  a  few  words  the  action  of  the  Commissioners,  .they  indorsed 
as  correct  the  bonds,  with  interest  up  to  January  1,  1854;  and  to  the  hold- 
ers of  the  bonds  of  1851,  the  coupons  of  which  fell  due  in  September  and 
March,  they  gave  a  certificate  of  indebtedness  for  the  interest  from  Janu- 


299 

ary  1,  1854,  to  March  1,  1854,  they  detaching  and  keeping  this  March 
coupon.  Instead  of  giving  certificates  to  the  holders  of  the  bonds  of  1852 
for  the  interest  from  January  1,  1856,  to  September  1,  1856,  they  stamped 
the  amount  of  this  interest  on  the  coupon  that  fell  due  January  1,  1857. 
The  coupons  of  the  bonds  of  1851,  from  March  1,  1854,  to  September  1, 

1856,  inclusive,  and  those  of  the  bonds  of  1852,  from  January  1,  1854,  to 
January  1,  1857,  inclusive  (the  latter  having  stamped  on  them  the  interest 
of  September  1,  1856),  were  detached  and  surrendered  to  the  bondholders, 
and  it  is  these  coupons  so  detached,  and  those  certificates  of  indebted- 
ness, which  are  urged  by  their  holders  as  being  valid  obligations  of  the 
State. 

The  coupons  of  the  bonds  of  1851,  representing  the  interest  from  Sep- 
tember 1,  1856,  to  maturity,  and  the  coupons  of  the  bonds  of  1852,  repre- 
senting the  interest  from  January  1,  1857,  to  maturity,  were  detached  and 
retained  by  the  Commissioners,  and  amounted,  according  to  their  final 
report,  to  $344,669  17.  These  were  destroyed  by  the  Military  Committee 
of  both  Houses,  in  accordance  with  concurrent  resolution  (Senate  Journal, 
12th  session,  page  779).  It  will  be  seen,  on  referring  to  the  report  of  the 
committee,  that  the  coupons  destroyed  amounted  to  the  sum  of  $327,207  98. 
The  seeming  discrepancy  between  these  figures  and  those  of  the  Commis- 
sioners is  easily  reconciled,  when  we  call  to  mind  the  fact  of  the  January, 

1857,  coupons  being  surrendered  to  the  bondholders,  with  the  interest 
stamped  on  it  from  January  1,  1856,  to  September  1,  1856.  It  is  plain, 
therefore,  that  the  coupons  destroyed  by  the  committee  would  not  be  as 
great  as  the  amount  returned  by  the  Commissioners,  by  so  much  interest 
on  the  bonds  of  1852  as  had  accrued  between  September  1,  1856,  and 
January  1,  1857. 

HISTORY    OF    THE    CLAIMS. 

None  of  the  bonds  of  1851  have  ever  been  presented  to  the  Legislature 
for  redemption  until  the  present  session,  there  being  a  bill  now  pending  for 
the  payment  of  bond  No.  34,  issued  April  1,  1851.  It  seems  that  a  dupli- 
cate was  issued  for  this  bond  to  John  C.  Johnson,  by  Act  of  April  30,  1853 
(Statutes  1853,  page  130),  and  it  is  certain  that  the  duplicate  has  been 
paid.  The  claim  is  accompanied  by  a  number  of  papers,  among  them 
being  an  affidavit  on  the  part  of  the  holder  of  the  bond,  who  claims  him- 
self to  be  an  innocent  purchaser  for  value,  and  a  letter  from  the  Board  of 
War  Debt  Commissioners  in  support  of  their  action  in  refusing  to  certify 
to  the  correctness  of  the  bond.  As  the  recommendation  of  this  report  ren- 
ders it  unnecessary  for  us  to  pass  upon  the  validity  of  this  claim,  we  have 
not  devoted  to  it  any  special  study. 

As  to  the  bonds  of  1852,  the  Legislature  have  made  appropriations  for 
their  payment  as  follows: 

In  1865  and  1866  (page  516  of  Statutes),  ijrincipal  and  interest  in  full. 132,500  00 

In  1867  and  1868  (page  468  of  Statutes),  principal  and  interest  in  full. 1,765  00 

In  1869  and  1870  (page  698  of  Statutes),  principal  and  interest  in  full 2,380  00 

When  the  bonds  alone  were  first  presented  to  the  Legislature  in  1865  and 
1866,  the  question  of  their  constitutionality  being  raised,  the  matter  was 
submitted  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  Assembly,  who  decided  them, 
with  but  one  dissenting  voice,  to  be  constitutional  and  valid.  (See  report 
in  third  volume  of  Appendix  to  Senate  and  Assembly  Journals,  sixteenth 
session.)  A  minority  report  was  made  by  Mr.  Luttrell,  the  present  repre- 
sentative in  part  of  the  County  of  Siskiyou  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly. 
This  gentleman,  however,  recommended  that  a  Commission  be  appointed 


300 

to  investigate  the  amount  and  character  of  the  Indian  war  indebtedness  of 
the  State,  and  report  the  result  to  the  ensuing  Legislature.  (See  report  in 
Appendix,  as  above.)  This  recommendation  was  so  far  concurred  in  as 
that  a  committee  was  appointed,  of  which  Mr.  Luttrell  was  made  Chair- 
man. The  committee,  however,  renewed  the  recommendation  previously 
made  by  their  Chairman,  and  so  the  matter  came  to  naught.  (See  report 
in  Assembly  Journal,  sixteenth  session,  page  630.) 

No  provision  has  ever  been  made  for  the  payment  of  the  coupons  and 
certificates,  though  strenuous  efi:brts  have  been  made  to  induce  such  action. 
This  seems  singular,  as  the  various  committees  to  whom  the  matter  was 
from  time  to  time  referred  reported  in  favor  of  their  payment. 

The  first  time  these  claims  were  presented  to  the  Legislature  was  in  1860. 
In  that  year,  Governor  Weller  called  the  attention  of  the  Legislature  to  the 
matter,  and  recommended  that  "prompt  provision  be  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  these  just  demands."  (See  his  message  in  Senate  Journal,  eleventh 
session. )  A  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  in  accordance  with  this  recom- 
mendation, and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Claims,  who  reported  unani- 
mously in  favor  of  the  payment  of  the  coupons.  They  conclude  their  report 
as  follows: 

The  laws  authorizing  the  issuance  of  the  bonds  provided  that  the  interest  should  be  paid 
on  the  twelve  per  cents,  semi-annually,  on  the  tirst  daj^s  of  March  and  September  of  each 
year,  and  on  the  seven  per  cents,  annually,  on  the  tirst  day  of  January  of  each  year,  from 
and  after  their  issuance.  The  bonds  carried  this  pledge  upon  their  face;  the  coupons 
attached  promised  the  same.  The  bonds  were  transferable  by  delivery,  and  no  doubt 
passed  through  many  different  hands.  Parties  purchasing  had  a  right  to  expect  that  the 
interest  would  be  paid  by  the  State  as  set  forth  on  the  face  of  the  bonds.  They  were 
signed  by  the  Controller  and  Treasurer  of  State,  indorsed  by  the  Governor,  stamped  with 
the  seal  of  State,  and  it  is  strange  that  the  solemn  pledge  of  the  State  should  not  ere  this 
have  been  fulfilled. 

A  majority  of  the  holders  of  this  indebtedness  have,  however,  as  your  committee  are 
informed,  expressed  a  willingness  to  surrender  their  evidences  of  indebtedness,  that  is  to 
say,  their  unpaid  coupons  and  certificates,  and  receive  in  lieu  thereof  bonds  of  the  State 
payable  at  some  future  date.  Certainly  the  State  cannot  refuse  to  do  this.  In  response  to 
this  your  committee  have  prepared  a  bill,  which  is  herewith  reported,  authorizing  the  fund- 
ing of  this  debt  and  the  issuance  of  bonds  payable  in  the  year  1870,  bearing  interest  at  the 
rate  of  seven  per  cent  per  annum,  containing  a  provision  that  if  the  General  Government 
shall  make  provision  for  the  payment  of  the  same  at  an  earlier  date,  the  State  shall  have 
the  privilege  of  calling  them  in  by  giving  sixty  days  notice,  from  and  after  which  time 
they  shall  cease  to  bear  interest. 

In  recommending  the  passage  of  this  bill,  your  committee  have  only  to  add  that  they 
feel  that  at  best  the  State  has  been  strangely  tardy  in  providing  for  the  payment  of  this 
indebtedness,  and  they  hope  that  the  same  may  be  favorably  and  at  once  considered  by  the 
Senate. 

These  claims  were  not  before  the  Legislature  of  1861,  so  far  as  we  can 
ascertain;  but  in  1862  Governor  Downey  drew  attention  to  them  in  his 
annual  message  of  that  year,  as  follows  (Senate  Journal,  thirteenth  session, 
page  thirty-four:) 

There  is  still  due  and  unpaid  the  sum  of  $218,468  54,  on  account  of  the  Indian  war  debt, 
incurred  prior  to  1854,  and  for  which  an  appropriation  was  made  by  Congress  of  $924,259  65 
(more  than  ample  at  the  time  to  meet  the  whole  war  debt).  This  balance  against  the 
State  on  this  account  is  mainly  owing  to  the  ruling  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  who  refused 
to  transfer  the  amount  thus  appropriated,  declining  to  recognize  tlie  bonds  as  evidence  of 
this  debt,  but  requiring  proof  of  the  indebtedness  by  the  production  of  the  original 
accounts  and  vouchers,  which  in  many  instances  had  become  quite  impossible.  Under 
this  ruling  of  the  Secretary  interest  of  two  years  was  suffered  to  accumulate,  and  the 
result  has  been  this  unpaid  balance— consisting  of  interest  on  coupons— the  sum  of  $172,- 
868  54;  bonds  remaining  unpaid,  $.38,100;  interest  due  on  the  latter,  $7,500;  total,  $218,- 
468  54.  These  bonds  mature  in  1862.  The  faith  of  the  State  is  pledged  to  their  payment; 
and  if  Congress  will  not  assume  this  debt,  as  it  properly  should,  the  State  ought  to  make 
provisions  for  its  liquidation. 

This  portion  of  the  Governor's  message  was  referred  by  the  Assembly  to 
a  special  committee,  who  reported  as  follows: 


301 

Mr.  Speaker:  Your  committee  to  whom  was  referred  that  part  of  Governor  Downey's 
message  relating  to  the  balance  due  on  account  of  Indian  war  debt,  report: 

That  they  find  that  there  is  now  outstanding  about  $220,000  of  the  old  Indian  war  debt, 
consisting  of  war  bonds,  coupons,  etc.,  for  the  payment  of  which  the  faith  and  credit  of 
the  State  has  been  pledged,  as  will  appear  by  an  Act  passed  May  2,  1852,  and  other  Acts 
supplementary  thereto,  under  which  said  bonds  were  issued. 

That  said  bonds  become  due  and  payable  on  the  second  day  of  May,  1862,  and  no  pro- 
vision has  been  made  for  the  payment  thereof. 

That  they  have  conferred  with  some  of  the  holders  of  the  aforesaid  indebtedness,  who 
claim  thej^  are  entitled  to  the  money  when  the  same  becomes  due;  but  knowing  that,  from 
the  present  condition  of  State  finances,  it  is  impossible  to  meet  this  indebtedness  with 
cash,  they  are  willing  to  accept  bonds  of  the  State  therefor. 

That  your  committee  recommend,  as  the  best  mode  of  settling  the  aforesaid  indebted- 
ness, that  bonds  of  the  State  be  issued,  drawing  interest  at  the  rate  of  seven  per  centum 
per  annum,  payable  in  ten  or  twenty  years,  or  out  of  any  appropriation  that  may  be  made 
by  the  Federal  Government  before  the  lapse  of  said  term,  and  respectfully  submit  the 
accompanying  Act  for  that  purpose  for  your  consideration. 

This  report  is  signed  by  the  whole  committee  of  five  (5),  one  of  the  num- 
ber being  Mr.  McCullough,  who  subsequently  became  Attorney-General, 
and  another,  Mr.  Machin,  who  subsequently  became  Lieutenant-Governor. 
A  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  providing  for  the  funding  of  the  coupons, 
as  recommended  by  the  Assembly  committee,  which  bill  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Finance,  who  reported  unanimously  in  favor  of  the  bill. 
Their  report  concludes  as  follows  (Senate  Journal,  thirteenth  session,  page 
623): 

The  Assemblj'^  bill  provides  for  issuing  bonds  for  the  bonds  and  interest  due  thereon, 
issued  subsequent  to  the  first  day  of  January,  1854,  and  would  leave  the  bonds  and  interest 
due  on  those  issued  prior  to  that  date  unprovided  for.  This  would  be  manifest  in  justice  to 
the  holders  of  the  coupons  on  the  old  bonds.  The  State  has  pledged  her  faith  and  credit 
to  pay  them  if  the  General  Government  did  not  jjrovide  for  their  payment  before  they  fell 
due.  This  the  General  Government  has  failed  to  do,  and  the  holders  of  the  coupons  look 
to  the  State  to  comply  with  her  obligation.  Your  committee  think  the  State  should  not, 
in  the  first  place,  have  taken  the  course  she  did,  in  making  herself  liable  for  these  debts ; 
but  having  done  so,  her  honor  and  credit  require  that  she  should  immediately  provide  for 
meeting  her  obligations. 

Some  fault  has  been  found  with  the  Commissioners  by  some  parties  for  returning  the 
unpaid  coupons  to  the  bondholders.  These  coupons  could  not  be  paid  by  the  terms  of 
the  Act  of  Congress,  and  the  amount  thereof  being  due  to  the  holders,  and  no  provision 
having  been  made  to  pay  them,  they  certainly  were  entitled  to  have  what  belonged  to 
them.  And  had  it  not  been  for  the  second  Act  of  Congress  providing  for  the  manner  of 
settlement,  a  very  large  portion  of  these  bonds  and  interest  thereon  would  not  have  been 
paid  by  the  Congressional  appropriation ;  but  the  holders  would  have  a  just  and  legal 
claim  against  the  State,  which  she  could  not  have  avoided  paying.  Therefore,  instead  of 
any  injury  arising  from  such  action  to  the  State,  she  was  saved  several  hundred  thousand 
dollars.  These  coupons  were  long  since  due.  They,  of  course,  draw  no  interest;  but 
the  bonds  to  which  they  were  attached  falling  due  on  the  second  day  of  May  next,  they 
should  be  settled.  Congress  may  at  some  future  day  provide  for  their  payment;  but  the 
holders  look  first  to  the  State.  "^We  therefore  recommend  the  passage  of  the  Assembly 
Bill,  with  several  amendments  herewith  presented. 

The  Adjutant  General  of  the  State  was  called  on  for  information  by 
resolution  of  the  Assembly  at  this  same  session  of  the  Legislature,  and  his 
report  can  be  found  in  Appendix  to  Senate  and  Assembly  Journals  of  the 
thirteenth  session.  He  gave  an  opinion  adverse  to  the  payment  of  the 
coupons  by  the  State,  for  the  reason  that  the  General  Government  had 
assumed  their  payment,  and  for  the  further  reason  that  the  Commissioners 
should  have  calculated  the  interest  up  to  the  time  of  presentation,  and 
then  made  a  final  settlement  with  the  holders  by  dividing  the  appropriation 
pro  rata.  As  answer  to  these  objections,  it  can  very  well  be  replied  that 
whether  the  Government  assumed  the  debt  or  not,  it  certainly  has  not  paid 
it;  and  as  to  the  action  of  the  Commissioners,  it  seems  clear  from  what  has 
gone  before  that  they  could  not  do  what  General  Kibbe  says  they  ought  to 
have  done.  But  suppose  they  had  done  so,  would  there  not  have  still  resulted 
a  balance  in  favor  of  the  bondholders,  for  which  the  State  would  have  been 


302 

liable?     The  Legislature,  however,  rejected  the  recommendation  of  their 
committees,  and  the  bill  to  fund  the  coupons  failed  to  become  a  law. 

In  1863  these  claims  were  again  presented  (the  Governor — Stanford — 
including  them  in  his  annual  message,  as,  indeed,  he  did  the  following 
year,  as  being  a  part  of  the  State  debt) ,  and  were  referred  to  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Finance.  This  committee  divided,  the  Chairman — Mr.  Per- 
kins— together  with  Mr.  Doll,  presenting  the  most  elaborate  report  that  had 
yet  been  made  upon  the  subject,  and  Mr.  Birdseye  and  Mr.  Gaskill  report- 
ing adversely.  These  reports  can  be  found  in  Appendix  to  Senate  and 
Assembly  Journals  of  the  fourteenth  session.  In  the  report  of  Senators 
Birdseye  and  Gaskill  the  following  paragraph  occurs,  which  we  deem  well 
to  quote: 

When  these  Commissioners  arrived  in  "Washington,  by  the  consent  and  through  the 
influence  of  the  bondholders,  they  obtained  the  passage  of  an  Act  of  Congress,  which 
took  the  matter  entirely  out  of  the  control  of  the  State,  diverted  the  money  from  the  State 
Treasury  directly  to  the  bondholders,  deprived  the  State  of  the  right  to  call  in  her  bonds 
under.sale  to  the  lowest  bidders,  ignored  the  State  in  the  premises,  set  aside  her  trust,  and 
destroyed  her  agency. 

The  reply  to  this,  as  your  committee  think,  can  be  found  in  the  extracts 
which  we  have  made  from  the  messages  of  Governors  Bigler  and  Johnson, 
and  from  the  reports  that  have  been  quoted. 

If  the  decision  of  the  Secretary  of  War  in  construction  of  the  Act  of  1854 
had  been  acted  on,  and  the  money  had  been  paid  directly  into  the  State 
Treasury,  the  State  would,  very  likely,  have  failed  to  realize  from  it  the 
face  of  her  bonds,  and  for  the  balance  she  would  have  been  liable  to  the 
bondholders;  so  that  the  Congressional  Act  of  1856  was  directly  in  her 
interests.  Her  bonds  had  been  regularly  issued  upon  her  faith  and  credit, 
and  she  was  in  honor  bound  to  pay  them  to  the  last  farthing. 

The  Commissioners  could  not  have  been  deemed  to  act  in  bad  faith  or 
to  the  prejudice  of  the  interests  of  the  State,  for  these  same  Commissioners 
were  authorized  by  the  Legislature,  in  1861  (page  298  of  Statutes),  to  adjust 
with  the  General  Government  the  war  debt  of  1857.  Indeed,  Governor 
Johnson,  in  his  annual  message,  dated  January  1,  1857,  speaks  as  follows: 

The  Commissioners  of  the  War  Debt  *  *  *  have  discharged  their  duties  with  fidelity 
to  the  interests  of  the  people  they  represented,  and  with  most  agreeable  results  in  the 
adjustment  of  this  indetstedness. 

This  indorsement,  together  with  the  fact  that  these  same  Commissioners 
were  again  detailed  for  a  similar  duty,  and  with  the  further  fact  that  there 
is  nothing  in  any  of  the  reports  that  tends  to  prove  that  they  acted  any 
otherwise  than  honestly,  demonstrate  satisfactorily  to  your  committee  that 
they  did  what  they  deemed  best  for  the  interests  of  the  State. 

Your  committee  would  further  state  that  they  have  failed  to  find  any 
evidence  of  the  Commissioners  having  colluded  with  the  bondholders,  as  is 
charged  in  the  extract  from  the  report  which  has  been  given  above. 

In  this  same  year  (1863)  the  Treasurer  brought  the  matter  of  these 
unpaid  coupons  and  certificates  to  the  attention  of  the  Governor  in  his 
annual  report,  and  after  treating  the  subject  at  some  length,  concludes  by 
saying  that  "  the  State  is  in  honor  bound  to  pay  those  detached  coupons, 
and  whatever  of  the  bonds  that  remain  unpaid  "  (see  Treasurer's  Report 
in  Appendix  to  Senate  Journal,  fourteenth  session) . 

At  the  next  session  of  the  Legislature  (that  of  1863-64)  the  project  was 
again  brought  forward  to  fund  this  indebtedness,  a  bill  being  introduced  in 
the  Senate  for  this  purpose,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Claims,  a 


303 

majority  of  whom  made  the  following  report.  (See  report  of  committee  in 
Appendix  to  Senate  Journal,  fifteenth  session).  The  minority  report  can 
be  found  in  the  same  place: 

Mr.  President:  The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  Senate  Bill  No.  59» 
"An  Act  entitled  an  Act  to  provide  for  paying  certain  demands  issued  on  the  faith  and 
credit  of  the  State,  which  became  due  and  paj'^able  on  the  second  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1862, 
and  to  contract  a  funded  debt  for  that  purpose,"  have  had  the  same  under  consideration, 
and  ask  leave  to  report : 

That  they  find  there  is  now  outstanding  about  |220,000  of  the  old  Indian  war  debt,  evi- 
denced by  and  consisting  of  war  bonds  and  coupons,  for  the  payment  of  which  the  faith 
and  credit  of  the  State  have  been  pledged,  as  will  fully  appear  hv  an  Act  passed  May  2, 
1852,  and  other  Acts  supplemental  thereto,  under  which  said  bonds  were  issued. 

That  said  bonds,  by  the  terms  of  said  Acts,  became  due  and  payable  on  the  second  day 
of  May,  1862,  and  no  provision  has  been  made  for  the  payment  thereof.  The  holders  of 
said  bonds  and  coupons  have  applied  to  former  Legislatures  to  provide  some  way  for  the 
settlement  of  the  aforesaid  indebtedness,  and  your  committee  have  carefully  examined 
the  proceedings  of  the  various  committees  to  whom  the  matter  has  been  heretofore 
referred,  and  have  been  unable  to  discover  any  well  founded  objection  to  any  part  of  this 
claim ;  on  the  contrarj^,  all  the  arguments  which  have  been  adduced,  based  upon  facts, 
militate  strength  in  favor  of  the  justice  thereof. 

In  1862  the  subject  was  discussed  by  Governor  Downey  in  his  annual  message,  in' which 
he  says,  after  summing  up  the  total  amount  of  this  indebtedness— making  it  $218,468  54 : 
"  These  bonds  mature  in  1862 ;  the  faith  of  the  State  is  pledged  to  their  payment,  and  if 
Congress  will  not  assume  this  debt,  as  it  properly  should,  the  State  should  make  pro- 
visions for  its  liquidation" — which  part  of  the  Governor's  message  was  referred  to  a  select 
committee  of  the  Assembly,  who,  after  a  thorough  examination  of  the  subject,  reported  a 
bill  similar  to  the  one  which  your  committee  have  considered  and  recommended  its  pas- 
sage. Said  special  committee  consisted  of  the  present  Lieutenant-Governor  of  the  State, 
the  present  Attorney-General,  and  Messrs.  Hillyer,  Morrison,  and  Worthington. 

The  holders  of  these  bonds  and  coupons  claim  that  they  were  entitled  to  the  money 
therefor  when  the  same  became  due,  out,  owing  to  the  embarrassed  condition  of  the 
finances  of  the  State,  they  have  been  and  now  are  willing  to  accept  bonds  of  the  State 
therefor,  as  provided  in  the  bill  referred  to  your  committee. 

Your  committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  settlement  of  these  claims  with  the  holders 
cannot  longer  be  delayed  without  great  injury  to  the  credit  and  a  serious  violation  of  the 
faith  of  the  State,  which  has  been  unconditionally  and  unqualifiedly  pledged  for  their 
redemption. 

Therefore  they  report  back  the  bill  and  recommend  its  passage.  . 

This  report  is  signed  by  John  P.  Jones,  W.  E.  Lovett,  and  George  S. 
Evans — the  latter  gentleman  being  an  honored  Senator  of  the  now  sitting 
Legislature. 

A  minority  report  was  also  submitted,  which  recommended  the  payment 
of  the  bonds,  but  disagreed  with  the  majority  report  as  to  the  payment  of 
the  coupons. 

This  report  speaks  of  "  notorious  frauds  committed  in  the  issue  of  these 
bonds,"  and  yet  the  gentlemen  who  sign  it  recommend  the  payment  of  the 
bonds,  but  would  refuse  payment  of  the  coupons. 

It  seems  to  your  committee  that  to  be  consistent  they  should  have 
reported  against  the  bonds,  as  they  did  against  the  coupons.  But  really, 
this  question  of  fraud  could  only  be  considered  when  the  bonds  were  in 
process  of  issue,  and  not  after  they  had  been  put  into  circulation  and  had 
passed  through  many  hands.  Under  such  circumstances,  a  negotiable 
instrument  is  conclusively  presumed  to  have  passed  for  a  valuable  consid- 
eration and  to  be  free  from  fraud.  But  if  any  fraud  was  ever  perpetrated, 
your  committee  have  failed  to  find  evidence  of  it  in  the  official  reports. 

As  this  minority  report  speaks  of  the  failure  of  the  Congressional  appro- 
priation to  pay  the  detached  coupons,  your  committee  deem  it  well  to  give 
the  true  history  of  this  matter,  as  it  is  given  by  Adjutant-General  Kibbe, 
who  was  himself  an  actor  in  the  scene.  The  following  extract  is  taken 
from  his  report,  attention  to  which  report  has  already  been  directed: 

I  had  the  honor  of  presenting  this  whole  matter  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  of 
the  United  States  Senate,  while  in  Washington  last  year,  explaining  the  same  to  them ;  in 


304 

which  explanation  I  satisfied  the  committee  that  Congress  had  virtually  assumed  this 
portion  of  the  debt  (the  interest),  by  Act  of  August,  1856,  and  that  committee  reported,  as 
an  amendment  to  the  Army  Appropriation  Bill,  the  following,  viz.: 

"  For  the  payment  of  the  coupons  outstanding  and  now  unpaid  accruing  between  the 
first  day  of  January,  1854,  and  the  sixteenth  day  of  August,  1856,  upon  the  bonds  of  the 
State  of  California,  issued  for  the  payment  of  expenses  incurred  in  the  suppression  of 
Indian  hostilities  prior  to  the  first  day  of  January,  1854,  the  redemption  of  which  bonds 
was  authorized  by  Acts  of  Congress  of  August  5,' 1854,  August  18,  1856,  and  June  23,  1860, 
$177,196  23 ;  said  coupons  to  be  certified  by  the  Third  Auditor  of  the  Treasury  to  be  those 
designated  by  this  section  to  be  paid  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  the  holders  thereof." 

But  it  being  asserted  by  Senators  that  many  of  these  coupons  had  been  purchased  for  a 
nominal  sum,  and  were  mainly  held  by  a  banking  house  in  Washington,  the  amendment 
did  not  prevail. 

Whether  this  assertion  of  Senators  was  true  or  not,  and  your  committee 
doubt  if  it  was,  the  fact  remains  that  these  detached  coupons  successfully 
withstood  the  scrutiny  of  a  Congressional  committee,  and  were  defeated 
because  of  statements  very  probably  made  at  random.  But  admitting  the 
statement  to  have  been  true,  it  does  not  relieve  the  State,  as  your  commit- 
tee think,  from  her  obligation  to  pay.  It  would  certainly  be  a  new  doc- 
trine to  hold  that  a  debtor  should  be  relieved  from  his  indebtedness 
because  his  obligations  went  begging  in  the  market.  Under  such  circum- 
stances your  committee  think  that  the  debtor  should  make  all  the  more 
effort  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  his  creditors. 

The  bill  again  failed,  and  the  coupons  and  certificates  were  not  presented 
again  until  the  year  1871,  when  they  were  laid  before  the  Board  of  Exam- 
iners, under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  which  provided  for  their  considera- 
tion of  claims  not  otherwise  provided  for  by  law.  The  Board  of  Examiners 
recommended  that  some  competent  person  be  appointed  whose  business  it 
should  be  to  investigate  the  whole  matter  of  Indian  war  bonds  and  coupons 
and  report  to  the  Governor  within  ninety  days,  the  Board  to  use  the  report 
as  a  basis  of  audit.  This  recommendation,  however,  was  not  concurred  in 
by  the  Legislature. 

The  amount  of  coupons  and  certificates  laid  before  the  Board  is  as  follows: 

Coupons  and  certificates,  by  voucher -..  $42,706  88 

Coupons  and  certificates,  by  schedule 34,708  55 

Total $77,415  43 

REASONS   FOR   PAYING   THE   CLAIMS. 

» 

The  claimants  give  the  following  reasons,  among  others,  for  urging  the 
payment  of  these  claims,  and  taken  in  connection  with  what  has  gone 
before,  your  committee  deem  them  conclusive: 

That  the  bondholders  had  good  reason  to  believe  when  they  surrendered 
their  bonds  that  Congress  would  make  an  appropriation  to  pay  the  coupons, 
and  not  having  done  so,  the  State  is  bound  by  virtue  of  her  contract  with 
those  who  took  her  bonds. 

That  the  principal  not  having  been  paid  until  September  1,  1856,  the 
bondholders  were  clearly  entitled  to  interest  up  to  that  time;  instead  of 
that  they  were  only  paid  up  to  January  1,  1854,  and  this  not  by  virtue  of 
any  composition  on  their  part,  but  because  of  the  rigid  rule  laid  down  by 
the  War  Department  in  its  construction  of  the  Acts  of  Congress  of  1854  and 
1856. 

That  the  bonds  of  1851  and  1852  were  as  valid  and  as  negotiable  as  any 
bonds  could  be,  for  they  were  issued  upon  the  faith  and  credit  of  the  State. 

That  there  was  no  fraudulent  collusion  of  the  bondholders  and  Com- 
missioners, for  the  State  authorities  recognized  the  conduct  of  the  latter  as 
having  been  wise  and  honest. 


305 

That  had  the  bondholders  not  surrendered  their  bonds  the  State  would 
have  been  bound  to  pay  not  only  the  interest  between  January,  1854,  and 
September,  1856,  but  the  whole  interest  to  maturity,  which  latter  was  saved, 
and  amounted  to  more  than  $300,000. 

That  the  bondholders  did  not  waive  nor  have  they  ever  waived  the 
interest  between  January,  1854,  and  September,  1856;  nor  did  they  yield 
up  this  interest  in  the  way  of  satisfaction;  that  is,  they  did  not  agree  to 
take  nor  had  they  any  intention  of  taking  the  principal  of  their  debt  with 
interest  up  to  January  1,  1854,  in  satisfaction  of  their  whole  debt;  that  the 
fact  of  their  coupons  having  been  surrendered  to  them  proves  this  beyond 
the  possibility  of  a  doubt. 

That  the  last  Legislature  paid  some  of  the  old  issue  of  the  bonds  of  1852, 
with  interest  in  full,  and  that  this,  as  a  precedent,  should  have  great  weight, 
from  the  fact,  that  by  the  surrender  in  1856,  over  $300,000  in  interest  was 
saved  the  State;  and  that  it  would  be  gross  injustice  to  pay  those  parties 
in  full  whose  refusal  to  surrender  their  bonds  in  1856  cost  the  State  in- 
creased interest,  while  depriving  others  of  the  interest  which  their  princi- 
pal indubitably  earned,  and  by  whose  course  the  State  was  saved  a  very 
large  amount. 

That  it  is  idle  to  say  the  bonds  were  fraudulently  or  improvidently  issued, 
as  such  instruments  after  having  been  put  in  circulation  cannot  be  affected 
by  such  considerations;  that  granting  that  the  coupons  have  passed  from 
hand  to  hand  for  insufficient  consideration  (of  which  there  is  no  proof) ; 
this  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  when  the  State  has  so  persistently  postponed 
their  liquidation;  and  that  if  such  is  the  case,  it  would  not  be  the  only 
instance  in  life  in  which  necessity  or  deferred  hope  has  caused  the  owner  to 
part  with  a  thing  of  value  for  an  insufficient  consideration;  but  that  some 
of  the  bondholders  have  not  parted  with  their  coupons,  and  still  retain 
them. 

That  the  agent  always  binds  his  principal  when  acting  within  the  scope 
of  his  authority;  that  the  Commissioners,  acting  within  the  scope  of  their 
authority,  returned  to  the  bondholders  these  detached  coupons  stamped 
with  their  stamp,  and  for  others  gave  certificates  of  indebtedness;  that  by 
so  doing  they  acknowledged  these  instruments  as  being  an  unliquidated 
and  valid  demand  against  the  State,  and  that  by  such  acknowledgment  the 
State  (their  principal)  is  bound. 

That  the  State  authorities  knew  of  the  course  the  Commissioners  were 
pursuing,  and  could  have  repudiated  their  action;  instead  of  that,  they  not 
only  assented  to  it  at  the  time,  but  applauded  the  conduct  of  the  Commis- 
sioners afterwards;  that  this  is  conclusive  of  the  objection  that  the  Com- 
missioners did  not  adhere  to  the  very  letter  of  their  instructions,  for  it  is 
well  settled  that  when  the  principal  assents  to  or  subsequently  confirms  the 
action  of  his  agent  the  principal  is  bound. 

^  That  the  Commissioners  deviated  from  the  strict  letter  of  their  instruc- 
tions in  but  two  particulars;  first,  in  not  paying  interest  up  to  the  time  of 
presentation  of  the  bonds;  and  secondly,  in  not  advertising  for  bids  for 
surrender  of  bonds.  That  as  to  the  first,  they  were  precluded  from  allow- 
ing interest  up  to  the  time  of  presentation,  on  account  of  the  ruling  of  the 
War  Department;  and  that  as  to  the  second,  it  would  have  been  a  useless 
expense  to  advertise  for  bids,  for  as  the  appropriation  was  more  than  suffi- 
cient to  pay  the  bonds,  with  interest,  up  to  January  1,  1854,  every  holder 
would  have  put  in  a  bid  at  par.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  agent  was 
forced  to  deviate  somewhat  from  the  letter,  in  order  that  he  might  preserve 
20  "^ 


306 

the  spirit  of  his  instructions,  and  that  he  did  so  with  the  knowledge  and 
consent  of  his  principal. 

That  the  Governor  is  bound  to  see  the  laws  faithfully  executed,  and  if 
he  saw  the  Commissioners  acting  in  derogation  of  the  statute  defining  their 
duties  he  could  have  repudiated  their  action  or  removed  them,  but  that  the 
Commissioners  were  not  only  sustained  by  the  Governor,  but  applauded  by 
him  (see  Governor  Johnson's  message  of  1857,  above  referred  to). 

That  the  acts  of  the  Commissioners  were  not  only  ratified  by  the  Gov- 
ernor, but  by  the  Legislature,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  statute  empowering 
the  Board  of  War  Debt  Commissioners  to  adjust  with  the  General  Govern- 
ment the  war  indebtedness  of  1857  (Statutes  of  1861,  page  298);  that  it 
will  be  seen  on  referring  to  the  first  section  of  this  Act  that  the  Legisla- 
ture acted  upon  the  assumption  that  the  Board  were  still  in  existence,  and 
that  it  is  plain  that  by  laying  upon  the  Commissioners  further  duties  of  the 
same  kind  previously  performed,  with  full  knowledge  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  trust  was  executed,  that  the  Legislature  thereby  ratify  the  pre- 
vious action  of  the  agent  of  the  State  in  the  execution  of  such  trust. 

That  the  bonds  and  coupons  were  issued  by  the  State  with  the  express 
promise  on  her  part  to  pay  them  if  the  United  States  Government  did  not, 
and  that  the  later  having  made  default  the  former  is  bound. 

That  every  Governor  who  has  spoken  officially,  and  every  committee  to 
whom  the  claims  have  been  referred  (most  of  them  unanimously,  and  only 
one  in  one  instance  evenly  dividing),  have  urged  their  liquidation. 

That  the  justice  and  validity  of  these  claims  have  been  acknowledged 
by  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  following  concur- 
rent resolution  (Statutes  of  1859,  page  381): 

Resolved  by  the  Senate,  the  Assembly  concurring,  That  our  Senators  at  Washington  be 
instructed  and  our  Representatives  in  Congress  be  requested  to  urge  upon  Congress  the 
immediate  payment  ot  the  Indian  war  debt  due  to  citizens  of  this  State. 

Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  forwarded  by  his  Excellency,  the  Governor, 
to  each  of  our  Senators  and  Representatives,  with  as  little  delay  as  possible. 

That  it  follows,  as  an  irresistible  conclusion,  that  to  refuse  payment  of 
these  claims  is  to  repudiate  a  portion  of  the  State  debt. 

AMOUNT    OF    INDEBTEDNESS   OUTSTANDING. 

As  to  the  amount  of  indebtedness  outstanding,  your  committee  are  ena- 
bled to  give  exact  official  information.  From  an  examination  of  the  bond 
register  of  the  bonds  of  1851  and  1852,  in  the  office  of  the  Treasurer  of 
State,  it  appears  that  bonds  were  issued  as  follows: 

Bonds  of  1851 |200,000  00 

Bonds  of  1852. 636,350  00 

By  the  officially  certified  lists  from  the  office  of  the  Third  Auditor  at 
Washington,  received  within  the  past  few  weeks,  it  appears  that  the  Gen- 
eral Government  has  paid  the  principal  of  bonds  as  follows: 

Bonds  of  1851 ...$197,000 

Bonds  of  1852 .• 598,450 

We  are  enabled,  therefore,  to  construct  the  following  tables: 

Issue  of  1851 .1200,000 

Paid  by  General  Government  of  principal. 197,000 

Outstanding  of  principal $3,000 


307 

Issue  of  1852 .' - ....$G36,350 

Paid  by  General  Government  of  principal.. $598,450 

Paid  by  State,  1865-66,  of  principal 20,950 

Paid  by  State,  1867-68,  of  principal... 900 

Paid  by  State,  1869-70,  of  principal... 1,350 

$621,650 

Outstanding  of  principal $14,700 

The  following  is  an  exhibit  of  the  bonds  that  were  laid  before  the  Board 
of  Examiners.  We  have  tabulated  them  so  that  they  can  be  easily  under- 
stood and  readily  referred  to: 


No.  of 
Bond. 


Name  of  Claimant. 


When  Issued. 


Princi- 
pal. 


Interest  to 
May  2,  1862. 


Total  Princi- 
pal and 
Interest. 


305 

306 

113 

347 

348 

349 

340 

396 

374 

373 

372 

141 

143 

142 

146 

416 

145 

128 

129 

130 

134* 

135 

136 

151 

329 

331 

332 

333 

340 

341 

353 

354 

355 

371 

383 

384 

386 

390 

391 

394 

420 

433 


E.  W.  Morse 

E.  W.Morse --- 

Samuel  Scott -.. 

I.  Wormser 

I.  Wormser 

I. "Wormser 

M.  S.  Latham. -. 
M.S.  Latham... 
M.  S.  Latham. -- 
M.  S.  Latham. -- 
M.  S.  Latham... 
M,  S.  Latham... 
M.  S.  Latham... 
M.  S.  Latham... 
M,  S.  Latham.  .. 
M.  S.  Latham... 
M.  S.  Latham . . . 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  (fe  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 
Jay  Cooke  &  Co. 


Jan. 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Apr. 

Apr. 

Apr. 

Sept. 

Aug. 

May 

May 

May 

Aug. 

Aug. 

Aug. 

Sept. 

May 

Sept. 

July 

July 

July 

July 

July 

July 

Oct. 

Mar. 

Mar. 

Mar. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

Apr. 

Apr. 

Apr. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

July 

Aug. 

Aug. 

Aug. 

July 

June 


19,  1854 

19,  1854 
3,  1854 

15,  1854 
17,  1854 

17,  1854 

20,  1854 
26,  1854 
13,  1854 
13,  1854 

13,  1854 
26,  1854 
26,  1854 
26,  1854 

14,  1854 

13,  1854 

14,  1854 

15,  1854 

21,  1854 
21,  1854 
21,  1854 
21,  1854 
21,  1854 

18,  1854 
29,  1854 
31,  1854 
31,  1854 
31,  1854 
12,  1854 
12,  1854 
25,  1854 
25,  1854 
25,  1854 

8,  1854 

6,  1854 
15,  1854 
21,  1854 

7,  1854 
11,  1854 

19,  1854 
15,  1854 
21,  1856 


$100 
100 
250 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
250 
250 
250 
250 
500 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
250 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
500 
100 


$57  96 
57  96 

143  18 
56  30 
56  30 
56  30 
53  29i 

53  7()| 
55  76| 
55  li'i 

55  7(;^ 
134  401 
134  40| 
134  40j 
133  531 
278  82} 
133  53| 
136  40 
136  10 
136  10 

93  38 
136  10 
136  10 
131  38 

56  63 
56  60 
56  60 
56  60 
56  36 
56  36 
56  11 
56  11 
56  11 
55  86 
55  31 

54  55 
54  44 
54  13 
54  05 
53  91 

272  80 
41  02 


$315  92 
393  18 


468  90 


3.473  43 


6,059  11 


Total  principal  and  interest  up  to  May  2,  1862,  when  bonds  matured $10,710  54 


*  Some  coupons  lost  from  this  bond. 


The  total  principal  is  thus  seen  to  be  $6,950,  and  the  total  interest  up  to 
May  2,  1862  (the  date  of  the  maturity  of  the  bonds),  $3,760  54.  We  have 
made  a  careful  comparison  of  these  bonds  with  the  numbers  of  those  paid 
at  Washington  and  by  the  State,  and  are  satisfied  that  none  of  them  have 
ever  been  paid,  with  the  exception  of  Bond  No.  347,  issued  April  15,  1854. 


308 

By  reference  to  the  official  list  in  Appendix,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  General 
Government  has  redeemed  a  bond  of  that  number  and  denomination.  We 
do  not  know  of  any  duplicate  having  been  authorized  by  statute  for  this 
bond,  nor  does  the  register  give  more  than  the  one  number.  In  fact,  the 
bond  here  corresponds  exactly  with  that  set  out  in  the  bond  register.  Both 
are  for  the  same  number  and  denomination,  and  both  purport  to  have  been 
issued  to  D.  B.  Kurtz,  on  the  fifteenth  of  April,  1854.  The  question  arises, 
how  did  this  bond  get  here?  Setting  aside  the  improbability  of  any  one 
counterfeiting  the  bond  and  all  of  its  indorsements,  including  that  of  Kurtz, 
and  the  fact  of  its  never  having  been  in  the  office  of  the  Third  Auditor — 
for  it  lacks  the  indorsement  of  the  War  Debt  Commissioners — we  are  driven 
to  the  supposition  that  the  number  three  hundred  and  forty-seven  in  the 
official  list  is  a  clerical  error.  At  all  events  the  bond  is  here,  and  bears 
every  evidence  of  genuineness. 

Our  examination  of  Bond  No.  433,  for  $100,  disclosed  the  following  singu- 
lar state  of  facts:  It  appears  that  two  bonds  of  $100  each,  numbered  432 
and  433,  were  issued  to  A.  W.  Bee  by  Act  of  the  Legislature  approved 
May  14,  1862  (page  554  of  Statutes),  in  lieu  of  Bonds  Nos.  344  and  345 
that  had  been  issued  November  24,  1854,  and  that  there  is  no  record  of 
any  bond  for  $100  numbered  433  having  been  issued  on  June  21, 1856.  Of 
course,  this  bond  could  not  be  one  of  those  issued  to  Bee,  because  his  bonds 
were  issued  in  1862,  and  were  to  bear  the  same  date,  by  the  terms  of  the 
statute,  as  those  bonds  which  he  was  to  surrender,  viz. :  November  24, 1854. 
The  suspicion  attached  to  this  bond  is  not  relieved  by  the  fact  of  its  lack- 
ing the  seal  of  the  Treasurer,  which  its  fellows  exhibit;  but  as  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  bond  will  have  to  be  passed  upon  in  the  process  of  funding,  we 
deem  it  unnecessary  to  discuss  the  matter  further. 

If  payment  were  made  of  the  bonds  above  tabulated,  there  would  still  be 
outstanding  of  the  bonds  of  1851,  $3,000,  being  three  bonds  numbered  107, 
108,  and  142,  and  of  the  bonds  of  1852,  $7,750.  As  one  half  of  these  latter 
($3,800)  belong  to  the  old  issue  of  1852,  and  were  not  presented  to  the  War 
Debt  Commissioners,  and  as  but  $1,350  of  these  have  ever  been  presented 
to  the  Legislature,  and  none  of  them  were  laid  before  the  Board  of  Ex- 
aminers, it  is  but  fair  to  presume  that  nearly  half  of  the  bonds  of  1852, 
still  outstanding,  will  never  be  brought  forward  for  payment. 

Deeming  the  following  table  may  be  of  some  service,  we  have  taken  the 
pains  to  construct  it,  premising  that  the  "  old  issue  "  of  1852,  comprises 
those  bonds  that  were  issued  prior  to  January  1, 1854,  and  the  "  new  issue," 
the  bonds  that  were  issued  after  that  time: 

Old  issue  of  1852 $595,950  00 

Paid  by  Government  of  principal $590,800  00 

Paid  by  State,  1868-70,  of  principal 1,350  00 

$592,150  00 

Outstanding $3,800  00 

New  issue  of  1852 $40,400  00 

Paid  bv  Government  of  principal $7,650  00 

Paid  by  State.  1865-66,  of  principal 20,950  00 

Paid  by  State,  1867-68,  of  principal 900  00 

$29,500  00 

Outstanding .--     $10,900  00 

The  amount  of  the  detached  coupons  is  given  by  the  Commissioners  at 
$172,828  54,  and  by  Adjutant-General  Kibbe  at  $127,196  23.  How  General 
Kibbe  arrives  at  these  latter  figures  he  does  not  tell  us,  nor  do  we  deem  it 
material  to  ascertain,  even  if  we  could  do  so.     The  Commissioners'  figures 


809 

are  adhered  to  in  all  of  the  official  reports;  and  hesides,  as  many  years 
have  elapsed  since  the  coupons  were  detached,  your  committee  doubt  if 
more  than  three  fourths  of  them  could  be  presented  in  shape  for  payment. 
The  whole  indebtedness  may  be  tabulated  as  follows: 

Bonds  of  1851,  of  principal $3,000  00 

Bonds  of  1852  (new  issue),  of  principal-.. 10,900  00 

Bonds  of  1852  (old  issue),  of  principal.. 3,800  00 

Detached  coupons  and  certificates  of  indebtedness 172,828  54 

Total - --. $190,528  54 

This  amount  will,  of  course,  be  somewhat  greater  when  there  is  added  to 
it  the  interest  on  the  bonds  to  their  maturity,  but  for  reasons  heretofore 
given  we  are  convinced  that  many  of  the  evidences  of  indebtedness  will 
never  be  presented,  and  that  the  sum  of  $190,000  is  considerably  more  than 
the  State  will  ever  be  called  upon  to  pay. 

The  Redemption  Registers  in  the  Treasurer's  office  we  found  to  be  as 
incomplete  as  they  are  stated  to  be  by  the  Board  of  Examiners,  but  it  will 
be  an  easy  matter,  by  means  of  the  official  lists  above  referred  to,  to  correct 
and  complete  them.  The  want  of  that  information  which  these  lists  furnish 
seems  to  have  been  the  motive  that  determined  the  conclusion  of  the  Board 
of  Examiners,  it  being  deemed  that  this  information  could  only  be  procured 
on  the  personal  application  of  an  agent  of  the  State.  After  this  determina- 
tion, however,  some  of  the  claimants  succeeded,  after  a  delay  of  some 
months,  in  obtaining  those  official  lists  of  which  we  have  made  such  good 
use,  and  which  we  beg  leave  to  append  to  this  report  as  an  appendix. 

RECOMMENDATION. 

The  committee  would  therefore  recommend  in  conclusion  that  the  whole 
indebtedness  be  funded,  the  Funding  Act  to  provide  for  the  issue  of  bonds 
of  the  State  to  the  amount  of  $190,000,  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  seven  per 
cent  per  annum.  A  tax  of  three  fourths  of  a  cent  on  each  $100  will  be  amply 
sufficient  for  the  purpose;  indeed,  this  rate  will  doubtless  prove  to  be  too 
high  in  the  course  of  a  few  years. 

Thus,  for  an  insignificant  tax,  would  the  State  be  finally  relieved  of  an 
obligatory  indebtedness  that  has  vexed  her  for  years,  and  her  people  receive 
yet  another  illustration  of  that  nice  sense  of  right  which  is  no  less  necessary 
to  the  honor  of  a  commonwealth  than  it  is  to  that  of  an  individual. 

GEORGE   C.   PERKINS, 
JOHN   McMURRY, 
WILLIAM   MINIS, 
HENRY  LARKIN, 
STEPHEN   WING, 

Senate  Committee. 

E.   B.  MOTT,  Jr., 
JACOB  WELTY, 
W.   N.   DE    HAVEN, 
ROBERT   BELL, 
J.    H.   COOPER, 
P.   B.   BACON, 
W.   A.   ALDRICH, 

Assembly  Committee. 


310 


APPENDIX. 

LIST 

Of  the  Calif ornia' twelve  per  cent  War  Bonds  paid  by  the  United  States  under  the  Smith  and 
Denver  Commission,  said  Bonds  being  for  the  amount  of  One  Thousand  Dollars  {^1,00U)  eachy 
and  with  interest  upon  the  Coupo7is  up  to  the  first  day  of  January,  1S54- 


Number  and  Date  of  Bond. 

Number  and  Date  of  Bond. 

Number  and  Date  of  Bond. 

Number  and  Date  of  Bond. 

1 

April  1,  1851. 

51 

April  1,  1851. 

122 

April  21, 1851. 

172 

June  10,  1851. 

2 

April  1 

1851.    1 

52 

April  1,  1851. 

123 

April  21, 1851. 

173 

June  10,  1851. 

3 

April  1 

1851. 

53 

April  1.  1851. 

124 

April  21, 1851. 

174 

June  10,  1851. 

4 

April  1 

1851. 

54 

April  i;  1851. 

125 

April  21, 1851. 

175 

June  10,  1851. 

6 

April  1 

1851. 

55 

April  1,  1851. 

126 

April  21, 1851. 

176 

July  25.  1851. 

6 

April  1 

1851. 

56 

April  1,  1851. 

127 

April  21, 1851. 

177 

July  25,  1851. 

7 

April  1 

1851. 

57 

April  1,  1851. 

128 

April  21, 1851. 

178 

July  25,  1851. 

8 

April  1 

1851. 

58 

April  1,  1851. 

129 

April  21, 1851. 

179 

July  25,  1851. 

9 

April  1 

1851. 

59 

April  1,  1851. 

130 

April  21, 1851. 

180 

July  25,  1851. 

10 

April  1 

1851. 

60 

April  1,  1851. 

131 

May  24, 1851. 

181 

July  25,  1851. 

11 

April  1 

1851. 

61 

April  1,  1851. 

132 

May  24, 1851. 

182 

July  25,  1851. 

12 

April  1 

1851. 

62 

April  1, 1851. 

133 

May  24, 1851. 

183 

July  25,  1851. 

13 

April  1 

1851. 

63 

April  1,  1851. 

134 

Ma'y  24, 1851. 

184 

July  25,  1851. 

14 

April  1 

1851. 

64 

April  1,  1851. 

135 

May  24, 1851. 

185 

July  25,  1851. 

15 

April  1 

1851. 

65 

April  1,  1851. 

136 

May  24, 1851. 

186 

July  25,  1851. 

16 

April  1 

1851. 

66 

April  1,  1851. 

137 

May  24, 1851. 

187 

July  25,  1851. 

17 

April  1 

1851. 

*67 

April  1,  1851. 

138 

May  24,1851. 

188 

July  25, 1851. 

18 

April  1 

1851. 

68 

April  1,  1851. 

139 

May  24, 1851. 

189 

July  25, 1851. 

19 

April  1 

1851. 

69 

April  1,  1851. 

140 

May  24, 1851. 

190 

July  25,  1851. 

20 

April  1, 

1851. 

70 

April  1,  1851. 

141 

May  24, 1851. 

191 

July  25,  1851. 

21 

April  1 

1851. 

71 

April  1,  1851. 

143 

May  21, 1851. 

192 

July  25,  1851. 

22 

April  1 

1851. 

72 

April  1,  1851. 

144 

May  24, 1851. 

193 

July  25,  1851. 

23 

April  1 

1851. 

73 

April  1,  1851. 

145 

May  24, 1851. 

194 

July  25,  1851. 

24 

April  1 

1851. 

*74 

April  1,  1851. 

14() 

May  24, 1851. 

195 

July  25,  1851. 

25 

April  1 

1851. 

75 

April  1,  1851. 

147 

May  24, 1851. 

193 

July  25,  1851. 

26 

April  1 

1851. 

76 

April  1,  1851. 

148 

May  24, 1851. 

197 

July  25,  1851. 

27 

April  1 

1851. 

77 

April  1,  1851. 

149 

May  24, 1851. 

198 

July  25,  1851. 

28 

April  1 

1851. 

78 

April  1,  1851. 

150 

May  24, 1851. 

199 

July  25,  1851. 

29 

April  1 

1851. 

79 

April  1,  1851. 

151 

June  10,  1851. 

22() 

July  25,  1851. 

30 

April  1 

1851. 

80 

April  1,  1851. 

152 

June  10,  1851. 

227 

JulV  25,  1851. 

31 

April  1 

1851. 

101 

April  9,  1851. 

153 

June  10,  1851. 

228 

July  25,  1851. 

32 

April  1 

1851. 

102 

April  9,  1851. 

154 

June  10,  1851. 

229 

July  25,  1851. 

33 

April  1 

1851. 

103 

April  9,  1851. 

155 

June  10,  1851. 

230 

July  25,  1851. 

*34 

April  1 

1851. 

104 

April  9,  1851. 

156 

June  10,  1851. 

231 

July  25,  1851. 

35 

April  1 

1851. 

105 

April  9,  1851. 

157 

June  10,  1851. 

232 

July  25,  1851. 

3B 

April  1 

1851. 

lOJ 

April  9,  1851. 

158 

June  10,  1851. 

233 

July  25,  1851. 

37 

April  1 

1851. 

109 

April  9,  1851. 

159 

June  10,  1851. 

234 

July  25,  1851. 

38 

April  1 

1851. 

110 

April  9,  1851. 

160 

June  10,  1851. 

235 

July  25,  1851. 

39 

April  1 

1851. 

111 

April  9,  1851. 

161 

June  10,  1851. 

236 

July  25,  1851. 

40 

April  1 

1851. 

112 

April  9,  1851. 

162 

June  10,  1851. 

237 

July  25,  1851. 

41 

April  1 

1851. 

113 

April  9,  1851. 

163 

June  10,  1851. 

238 

July  25,  1851. 

*42 

April  1 

1851. 

114 

April  9,  1851. 

164 

June  10,  1851. 

239 

July  25,  1851. 

43 

Apr'il  1 

1851. 

115 

April  9,  1851. 

165 

June  10,  1851. 

240 

July  25,  1851. 

44 

April  1 

1851. 

116 

April  9,  1851. 

166 

June  10,  1851. 

241 

July  25,  1851. 

45 

April  1 

,  1851. 

117 

April  9,  1851. 

167 

June  10,  1851- 

242 

July  25,  1851. 

46 

April  1 

1851. 

118 

April  9,  1851. 

168 

June  10, 1851. 
June  10,  1^51. 

243 

July  25,  1851. 

47 

April  1 

,  1851. 

119 

April  9,  1851. 

169 

244 

July  25,  1851. 

48 

April  1 

,  1851. 

120 

April  11,  1851. 

170 

June  10,  1851. 

245 

July  25,  1851. 

49 

April  1 

,  1851. 

121 

April  21, 1851 

171 

June  10,  1851. 

268 

April  8,  1852. 

50 

April  1 

,  1851. 

t 

*  These  so  noted  were  paid  as  duplicates  in  lieu  of  the  original  bonds. 

Third  Auditor's  Office,  December  21,  1871. 
A  true  list. 


VANDOREN,  Clerk. 


311 


LIST  OF  SEVEN  PER  CENT  CALIFORNIA  WAR  BONDS  PAID  BY 
THE  UNITED  STATES. 

First — Bonds  with  interest  upon  the  coupons  up  to  the  first  of  January, 
1854: 

One  thousand  dollar  bonds,  numbers  one  to  three  hundred  and  forty-one, 
inclusive. 

Five  hundred  dollar  bonds,  numbers  one  to  ninety,  inclusive. 

Five  hundred  dollar  bonds,  numbers  ninety-two  to  one  hundred  and 
eighty-five,  inclusive. 

Five  hundred  dollar  bonds,  numbers  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven  to 
three  hundred  and  six,  inclusive. 

Five  hundred  dollar  bonds,  numbers  three  hundred  and  eight  to  three 
hundred  and  ninety-nine,  inclusive. 

Two  hundred  and  fifty  dollar  bonds,  numbers  one  to  sixty-eight,  inclusive. 

Two  hundred  and  fifty  dollar  bonds,  numbers  seventy  to  one  hundred 
and  five,  inclusive. 

One  hundred  dollar  bonds,  numbers  one  to  one  hundred  and  fourteen, 
inclusive. 

One  hundred  dollar  bonds,  numbers  one  hundred  and  sixteen  to  one 
hundred  and  thirty-one,  inclusive. 

One  hundred  dollar  bonds,  numbers  one  hundred  and  sixty-four  to  two 
hundred  and  eighteen,  inclusive. 

One  hundred  dollar  bonds,  numbers  two  hundred  and  twenty  to  two  hun- 
dred and  sixty-seven,  inclusive. 

One  hundred  dollar  bonds,  numbers  two  hundred  and  seventy-two  to  two 
hundred  and  ninety-six,  inclusive. 

Second — Bonds  bearing  date  subsequent  to  the  first  day  of  January,  1854, 
with  coupons  paid  to  the  first  day  of  July,  1860. 

Five  hundred  dollar  bonds,  numbers  four  hundred  and  three,  four  hun- 
dred and  nine,  four  hundred  and  ten,  four  hundred  and  eleven,  and  four 
hundred  and  thirteen. 

Two  hundred  and  fifty  dollar  bonds,  numbers  one  hundred  and  eight, 
one  hundred  and  nine,  one  hundred  and  ten,  one  hundred  and  twenty-one, 
and  one  hundred  and  twenty-two. 

Two  hundred  and  fifty  dollar  bonds,  numbers  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
three,  one  hundred  and  twenty-four,  one  hundred  and  twenty-five,  one 
hundred  and  twenty-six,  one  hundred  and  forty,  and  one  hundred  and 
forty-nine. 

One  hundred  dollar  bonds,  numbers  three  hundred  and  two,  three  hun- 
dred and  twenty-four,  three  hundred  and  twenty-five,  three  hundred  and 
twenty-six,  three  hundred  and  thirty-four,  three  hundred  and  thirty-five, 
three  hundred  and  thirty-six,  three  hundred  and  thirty-seven,  three  hun- 
dred and  thirty-eight,  three  hundred  and  thirty-nine,  three  hundred  and 
forty-two,  three  hundred  and  forty-three,  three  hundred  and  forty-four, 
three  hundred  and  forty-five,  three  hundred  and  forty-six,  three  hundred 
and  forty-seven,  three  hundred  and  fifty,  three  hundred  and  fifty-seven, 
three  hundred  and  fifty-eight,  three  hundred  and  fifty-nine,  three  hundred 
and  sixty-six,  three  hundred  and  seventy,  three  hundred  and  seventy-five, 
and  three  hundred  and  seventy-six. 

WM.  THEO.  VANDOREN,  Clerk. 
Third  Auditor's  Office,  January  10,  1872. 


312 

[Extract  from  Report  of  Adjutant-General  Geo.  B.  Cosby.] 

I  desire  to  invite  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  much  time  and  labor 
has  been  devoted  in  this  office  during  the  last  two  years  to  hunting  up  the 
various  reports,  vouchers,  etc.,  pertaining  to  war  claims  of  California,  against 
the  United  States,  arising  from  the  various  Indian  wars  within,  and  upon 
the  borders  of  this  State,  also  during  the  late  civil  war.  The  papers  relat- 
ing especially  to  the  Indian  wars  have  been  laying  in  the  State  offices 
for  more  than  thirty  years.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  money 
actually  expended  by  California  in  these  wars  constitutes  a  just  claim 
against  the  United  States,  yet  for  many  years  all  efforts  and  hope  seemed 
to  have  been  abandoned,  and  the  documents  referred  to  regarded  as 
scarcely  more  valuable  than  waste  paper.  A  large  amount  of  time  and 
arduous  labor  has  been  devoted  to  preparing  these  claims  for  presentation 
to  the  proper  authorities  at  Washington  City  by  Captain  John  Mullan, 
State  Agent  and  Counsel,  acting  therein  under  his  contract  with  the  State. 
There  now  seems  to  be  a  favorable  prospect  of  securing  from  the  United  States 
for  the  State  of  California,  a  recognition  and  payment  of  these  several  claims. 
The  details  concerning  their  character  and  amounts,  and  the  steps  taken 
to  secure  payment  are  set  forth  in  an  elaborate  report  thereon,  made  by 
him  to  your  Excellency  on  the  first  of  November,  1886,  and  to  which  I  ask 
especial  attention.  In  view  of  the  matter  therein  contained,  I  now  respect- 
fully recommend  that  the  proceeds  arising  from  these  claims,  after  pay- 
ment shall  have  been  made  of  all  outstanding  valid  indebtedness  for  which 
such  proceeds  have  been  heretofore  dedicated  by  law,  may  be  reserved  as 
a  special  military  fund,  and  to  be  used  exclusively  for  such  legitimate 
wants  as  pertain  to  the  permanent  and  efficient  maintenance  of  the  National 
Guard  and  of  the  soldiers'  home  for  the  disabled  veterans  of  the  volunteers 
from  this  State.  The  persistent  labor  and  intelligent  efforts  of  Captain 
Mullan  in  behalf  of  these  claims  deserve  great  consideration. 


EXHIBIT  No.   3. 

JOINT  RESOLUTION  IN  RELATION  TO  THE  WAR  DEBT. 

[Approved  March  1,  1853.] 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  Assembly, ^  That  the  Board  of  Examiners  of 
the  accounts  and  vouchers  for  expenses  incurred  by  this  State  for  the  sup- 
pression of  Indian  hostilities,  are  hereby  directed  to  make  out  and  present 
to  the  Legislature  a  statement  of  said  accounts,  together  with  all  the  cor- 
respondence and  circumstances  relating  to  the  origin,  prosecution,  and  con- 
clusion of  the  Indian  wars  in  this  State,  prosecuted  by  authority  of  the 
same;  and  generally  such  information  as  may  be  proper  to  be  submitted 
to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  in  order  that  the  debt  thus  assumed 
by  this  State,  and  the  bonds  issued  thereupon,  may  be  provided  for  by  the 
General  Government,  in  such  manner  and  with  such  promptitude  as  is 
demanded  by  the  merits  of  the  claim  and  the  right  of  protection  in  such 
cases. 

(Laws  of  California  1853,  page  310.) 


313 


14.     RESOLUTION  RELATIVE  TO  BALANCE  OF  WAR  DEBT. 

Resolved  by  the  Senate,  the  Assembly  concurring,  That  our  Senators  in 
Congress  are  hereby  instructed,  and  our  Representatives  be  requested,  to 
use  their  exertions  to  obtain  from  the  Government  of  the  United  States  an 
appropriation  of  two  hundred  thousand  six  hundred  and  seventy-five  dol- 
lars and  eighty-eight  cents,  the  surplus  of  our  war  indebtedness,  over  and 
above  the  amount  heretofore  appropriated  by  Congress  for  that  purpose,  to 
be  applied  toward  the  liquidation  of  the  balance  of  the  war  debt  of  this 
State,  incurred  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  within  our  borders. 

Resolved,  That  his  Excellency  the  Governor  be  and  he  is  hereby  required 
to  transmit  a  copy  of  this  resolution  to  our  Senators  and  Representatives 
in  Congress  at  an  early  day. 

(Statutes  of  California  1856,  page  243.) 


NO.  XXV. 

Concurrent  resolution  relative  to  the  passage  of  a  law,  by  Congress,  maJcing 
appropriation  for  the  payment  of  bonds  authorized  to  be  issued  for  the  pay- 
ment of  Indian  hostilities. 

[Passed  April  17, 1858.] 

Resolved  l)y  the  Assembly  of  the  State  of  California,  the  Senate  concurring, 
That  our  Senators  be  instructed,  and  our  Representatives  in  Congress 
requested,  to  use  their  influence  to  procure  the  passage  of  a  law  making  an 
appropriation  sufficient  for  the  payment  of  the  bonds  authorized  to  be  issued, 
by  this  State,  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  within  her  bounds, 
for  the  payment  of  which  no  provision  has  been  made,  and  of  the  expenses 
incident  thereto. 

Resolved,  That  the  Governor  of  this  State  be  and  he  is  hereby  requested 
to  furnish  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  with  a  statement 
of  the  amount  of  such  bonds  authorized  to  be  issued  under  any  law  of  this 
State,  and  the  incidental  expenses  connected  therewith,  and,  also,  copies  of 
these  resolutions. 

(Statutes  of  California  1858,  page  358.) 


CONCURRENT  RESOLUTION  NO.  1. 

[Passed  January  11,  1859.] 

Resolved  by  the  Senate,  the  Assembly  concurring.  That  our  Senators  at 
Washington  be  instructed,  and  our  Representatives  in  Congress  be  re- 
quested, to  urge  upon  Congress  the  immediate  payment  of  the  Indian  war 
debt  due  to  citizens  of  this  State. 

Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  forwarded  by  his  Excellency, 
the  Governor,  to  each  of  our  Senators  and  Representatives,  with  as  little 
delay  as  possible. 

(Statutes  of  California  1859,  page  381.) 

State  of  California,  Department  of  State. 

I,  Thomas  L.  Thompson,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of  California, 
do  hereby  certify  that  I  have  carefully  compared  the  annexed  copy  of  Con- 


314 

current  Resolution  No.  1,  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Califor- 
nia on  January  11,  1859,  with  the  original  now  on  file  in  my  office,  and 
that  the  same  is  a  correct  transcript  therefrom  and  of  the  whole  thereof. 
Also,  that  this  authentication  is  in  due  form  and  by  the  proper  officer. 

Witness  my  hand  and  the  Great  Seal  of  State,  at  office  in  Sacramento, 
California,  the  third  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1885. 

[SEAL.]  *  THOMAS  L.  THOMPSON, 

Secretary  of  State. 
By  A.  E.  Shattuck,  Deputy. 


NO.  XXX— CONCURRENT  RESOLUTION. 

[Passed  April  18,  1859.] 

Resolved  by  the  Assembly^  the  Senate  concurring^  That  the  Quartermaster 
and  Adjutant-General  of  this  State  be  and  he  is  hereby  requested  to  for- 
ward to  the  War  Department  at  Washington,  and  to  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  January  next,  all  the  original 
vouchers  for  claims  for  expenses  incurred  by  the  various  wars  and  expedi- 
tions against  the  Indians  of  this  State  (now  unpaid)  up  to  the  present  date, 
whether  held  by  the  State  of  California  or  any  citizen  thereof,  with  a  view 
of  inducing  immediate  assumption  of  the  same  by  the  General  Govern- 
ment. 

(Statutes  of  California  1859,  page  395.) 

NO.    XXXIV.— CONCURRENT   RESOLUTION    IN   RELATION   TO 

THE   WAR   DEBT. 

[Passed  April  10,  I860.] 

Resolved  hy  the  Senate,  the  Assembly  concurring,  That  his  Excellency,, 
the  Governor,  is  hereby  directed  to  have  made  out,  in  duplicate,  a  complete 
statement  of  the  expenses  incurred  by  citizens  of  this  State  in  the  suppres- 
sion of  Indian  hostilities,  which  have  been  recognized  by  legislative  action, 
and  which  have  not  been  assumed  and  paid  by  the  General  Government; 
together  with  such  of  the  correspondence  and  information  relating  to  the 
origin,  prosecution,  and  termination,  of  the  several  Indian  wars,  waged  by 
authority  of  this  State,  as  may  be  proper  to  submit  to  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  in  asking  payment  therefor;  which  statement,  corre- 
spondence, and  information,  shall  be  presented  to  the  next  Legislature  of 
this  State,  which  is  to  meet  on  the  first  Monday  in  January,  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  sixty-one. 

(Statutes  of  California  1860,  page  422.) 


NO.  XXXVL— CONCURRENT   RESOLUTION. 

[Passed  April  18,  I860.] 

Whereas,  A  bill  has  been  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
providing  for  the  assumption  of  the  Indian  war  debt  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia by  the  General  Government;  therefore,  be  it 


315 

Resolved  by  the  Senate,  the  Assembly  concurring,  That  his  Excellency,  the 
Governor  of  California,  be  requested  to  transmit  at  his  earliest  convenience, 
to  our  Members  in  Congress,  the  original  vouchers  upon  which  this  debt  is 
predicated,  together  with  the  record  of  the  action  thereon  by  the  Board  of 
Examiners  of  War  Claims,  whether  the  said  claims  are  held  by  the  State 
of  California,  or  by  citizens  thereof. 

(Statutes  of  CaHfornia  1860,  page  423.) 


NO.  XXXIV.— CONCURRENT  RESOLUTION. 

[Adopted  May  3,  18G1.] 

Resolved  by  the  Assembly,  the  Senate  concurring,  That  our  Senators  in 
Congress  be  instructed,  and  our  Representatives  requested,  to  procure,  at 
as  early  a  day  as  practicable,  an  appropriation  to  meet  the  expenses  of  the 
Volunteers  under  the  command  of  Colonel  John  C.  Hays,  for  services,  and 
all  claims  justly  chargeable  to  the  Federal  Government,  in  the  late  Indian 
war  in-  Utah  Territory. 

(Statutes  of  California  1861,  page  680.) 

NO.  XXXIX.— CONCURRENT  RESOLUTION. 

[Adopted  February  8,  1862.] 

Whereas,  The  citizens  of  this  State,  upon  the  Indian  frontier,  have  been 
exposed  to  the  depredations  of  hostile  Indians  since  the  settlement  of 
California  by  the  whites,  and  have  suffered  severe  losses  of  property  by 
tribes  under  the  control  of  the  Federal  Government  (and  with  whom 
treaties  of  peace  have  been  made),  such  as  the  destruction  of  horses,  build- 
ings, bridges,  ferries,  and  other  property,  and  in  having  stock  and  other 
property  of  various  descriptions  stolen;  therefore, 

Resolved  by  the  Senate,  the  Assembly  concurring.  That  our  Senators  in 
Congress  be  instructed,  and  our  Representatives  be  requested,  to  use  their 
exertions  to  secure  the  passage  of  an  Act  by  Congress  directing  the  appoint- 
ment, by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  of  a  Commissioner,  whose 
session  shall  be  held  at  some  convenient  point  or  points  in  this  State,  and 
who  shall  be  authorized  and  required  to  collect  proof  relative  to  the  losses 
sustained  by  our  citizens,  as  aforesaid,  and  report  the  same  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior,  to  be  by  him  submitted  to  Congress. 

Resolved,  That  his  Excellency,  the  Governor,  be  requested,  at  an  early 
day,  to  forward  copies  of  the  foregoing  preamble  and  resolutions  to  our 
Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress. 

(Statutes  of  California  1862,  page  611.) 

NO.  XIV— CONCURRENT  RESOLUTION. 

[Adopted  April  12,  1862.] 

Resolved  by  the  Senate,  the  Assembly  co7icurring,  That  the  Adjutant- 
General  of  this  State  is  hereby  instructed  to  forward  to  the  Third  Auditor 
of  the  Treasury  Department  of  the  United  States,  for  settlement,  all  addi- 
tional vouchers  (original)  representing  claims  for  supplies  furnished  any  of 


316 

the  expeditions  against  the  Indians  of  this  State,  for  the  payment  of  which 
Congress  made  an  appropriation  by  Act  of  March  second,  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-one. 

(Statutes  of  California  1862,  page  604.) 


NO.  XIV— CONCURRENT  RESOLUTION. 

[Adopted  March  5, 1863.] 

Whereas,  Many  citizens  of  this  State,  in  the  years  eighteen  hundred  and 
fifty-nine  and  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty,  were  employed  in  the  service  of 
the  United  States  by  the  agents  of  the  Indian  Department,  and  others 
furnished  the  agents  of  Government  with  supplies  for  the  several  Indian 
reservations  in  California,  upon  the  assurance  and  belief  that  the  accounts 
therefor  would  be  speedily  paid,  which  has  not  to  the  present  time  been 
done;  and,  whereas,  there  is  now  an  unexpended  balance  in  the  Treasury 
of  the  United  States  of  the  appropriation  for  defraying  the  expenses  of  the 
Indian  service  in  this  State,  and  which  is  applicable  to  the  accounts  men- 
tioned, and  which  has  been  withheld  from  the  objects  intended  by  the 
Congress  making  said  appropriation;  therefore,  be  it — 

Resolved  by  the  Assembly,  the  Senate  concurring,  That  our  Senators  be 
instructed  and  our  Representatives  requested  to  urge  on  the  proper  author- 
ities in  Washington  a  prompt  examination  and  settlement  of  the  accounts 
aforesaid. 

Resolved,  That  the  Governor  be  requested  to  transmit  a  copy  of  the  fore- 
going to  each  of  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress,  to  the 
Secretary  of  the   Interior,  and  to  the   Commissioner  of  Indian   Affairs. 

(Statutes  of  California  1863,  page  783.) 


NO.  XII— CONCURRENT  RESOLUTIONS. 

[Adopted  February  6,  1864.] 

Whereas,  A  devastating  and  relentless  Indian  war  has  been  and  is  still 
being  waged  in  certain  counties  in  the  northern  portion  of  this  State,  the 
extent  of  which  has  never  been  fully  known  to  the  people  in  other  portions 
of  the  State,  nor  properly  considered  by  those  whose  duty  it  was  to  afford 
us  protection  at  a  time  when  a  small  force,  judiciously  managed,  could  have 
so  disposed  of  those  Indians  as  to  have  effectually  prevented  the  present 
lamentable  condition  of  the  counties  of  Humboldt,  Klamath,  and  Trinity; 
and,  whereas,  in  the  counties  above  named  there  are  no  less  than  fifteen 
hundred  Indian  warriors,  many  of  whom  are  well  armed  with  rifles,  shot- 
guns, and  revolvers,  and  as  they  are  almost  daily  adding  to  their  stock  of 
arms  and  ammunition,  by  murdering  defenseless  miners,  farmers,  and 
traders,  and  are  successfully  encouraging  a  general  uprising  of  Indians 
which  the  whites  had  hoped  would  remain  quiet  for  the  present,  and  as  the 
people  of  the  entire  counties  of  Humboldt,  Klamath,  and  Trinity  are,  to  a 
great  extent,  at  the  mercy  of  the  savages,  the  military  force  at  present  in 
that  district  being  entirely  inadequate  for  the  protection  of  the  citizens,  and 
owing  to  the  peculiar  natural  advantages  which  the  Indians  in  that  district 
possess  over  the  whites,  in  the  adaptation  of  that  mountainous  region  for 
the  prosecution  of  their  cowardly  mode  of  warfare,  it  becomes  necessary  to 
operate  against  them  in  the  Winter  season;  and  as  they  have  already  des- 


317 

troyed  about  one  eighth  of  the  taxable  property  of  Humboldt  County,  and 
entirely  depopulated  large  portions  of  Trinity  and  Klamath  Counties,  hav- 
ing murdered  no  less  than  seventy-five  valuable  citizens,  and  in  some  cases 
women  and  children  in  so  doing;  and,  whereas,  it  is  well  known  that  the 
Indians  are  preparing  for  a  war  of  extermination  and  extended  operations 
in  the  Spring,  which  they  will  be  able  to  carry  on  to  a  frightful  extent  if 
they  are  not  checked  immediately;  therefore. 

Resolved  by  the  Assembly,  the  Senate  concurring,  That  his  Excellency,  the 
Governor,  be  requested  to  use  his  best  endeavors  to  have  a  sufficient  num- 
ber of  troops  sent  to  the  scene  of  hostilities  immediately  as  will  give  secu- 
rity to  what  few  lives  and  little  property  that  may  be  left,  and  if  possible 
avert  a  more  extended  field  of  blood  and  rapine,  which  the  savages  are 
preparing  for,  and  prevent,  if  possible,  other  counties,  which  are  now  con- 
sidered out  of  danger,  from  being  overrun  by  hostile  savages. 

And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  if  the  military  commander  of  this  divis- 
ion cannot  furnish  the  requisite  number  of  troops  to  restore  this  valuable 
portion  of  our  State  to  the  peaceable  possession  of  the  whites,  and  throw  a 
proper  safeguard  around  them  for  the  future,  then  his  Excellency  is  hereby 
requested  to  lay  our  grievances  before  the  Secretary  of  War,  through  our 
Representatives  in  Congress,  to  the  end  that  our  now  deplorable  and  immi- 
nently dangerous  future  may  be  properly  cared  for. 

(Statutes  of  California,  page  544.) 


NO.  XVIII— MEMORIAL  CONCERNING  THE  PAYMENT  OF 
DAMAGES  BY  THE  UNITED  STATES  DONE  BY  INDIANS 
IN  1861,  1862,  AND  1863,  IN  THE  COUNTIES  OF  HUMBOLDT, 
TRINITY,  KLAMATH,  DEL  NORTE,  ETC. 

[Adopted  March  27,  1868.] 

The  Memorial  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California  to  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  of  America  respectfully  represents: 

That  the  United  States  Government  has  failed,  in  the  years  of  our  Lord 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-two,  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-three,  and  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-four,  to  protect 
the  citizens  of  Humboldt,  Klamath,  Del  Norte,  and  Trinity  from  the  violence 
of  the  Indians  of  that  quarter  of  the  State,  and  that  many  lives  were  lost 
during  the  period  named  of  some  of  the  best  citizens  of  the  State,  for  which 
recompense  is  not  possible. 

It  is  further  represented  that  during  the  time  named  a  large  amount  of 
property  was  destroyed  by  these  Indians.  It  is  believed  that  the  property  so 
lost  was  of  the  value  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars. 

This  memorial  respectfully  asks  that  steps  be  authorized  and  taken  by 
the  General  Government  to  ascertain  the  amount  of  property  so  destroyed 
in  the  period  named,  with  the  names  of  owners,  date  of  destruction,  and 
other  proper  information  relative  thereto,  to  the  end  that  the  parties  in 
interest  may  be  reimbursed. 

The  direct  proof  of  what  is  here  alleged  can  be  easily  afforded,  but  a 
difficulty  is  felt  in  having  no  tribunal  or  authority  to  take  such  proof. 

(Statutes  of  CaHfornia  1867-68,  page  739.) 


318 
CHAP.  LIV— ASSEMBLY  JOINT  RESOLUTION  No.  -73. 

[Adopted  March  30,  1878.] 

Resolved  by  the  Assembly  of  the  State  of  California,  the  Senate  concurring, 
First,  that  our  Senators  be  instructed,  and  our  Representatives  requested,  to 
urge  upon  Congress  the  immediate  payment  of  all  bonds,  coupons,  and 
certificates  of  coupons,  issued  by  the  State  of  California  for  expenses  in- 
curred in  the  Indian  wars,  which  have  not  been  paid  by  the  General  Gov- 
ernment; Second,  that  his  Excellency,  the  Governor,  be  requested  to  cause 
a  statement  of  all  such  bonds,  certificates,  and  coupons,  and  of  the  circum- 
stances connected  therewith,  to  be  prepared  by  the  Controller,  and  upon 
such  statement  being  prepared,  to  cause  an  application  to  be  made  to  Con- 
gress, in  the  name  of  the  State  of  California,  for  the  payment  of  said  bonds, 
coupons,  and  certificates;  Third,  and  that  he  forward  a  copy  of  these  resolu- 
tions to  each  of  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress. 

(Statutes  of  California  1877-8,  page  1083.) 

REPORT. 

Mr.  President:  The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  Sen- 
ate Bill  No.  59,  "An  Act  entitled  an  Act  to  provide  for  paying  certain 
demands  issued  on  the  faith  and  credit  of  the  State,  which  became  due 
and  payable  on  the  second  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1862,  and  to  contract  a  funded 
debt  for  that  purpose,"  have  had  the  same  under  consideration,  and  ask 
leave  to  report: 

That  they  find  there  is  now  outstanding  about  $220,000  of  the  old  Indian 
war  debt,  evidenced  by  and  consisting  of  war  bonds  and  coupons,  for  the 
payment  of  which  the  faith  and  credit  of  the  State  has  been  pledged,  as 
will  fully  appear  by  an  Act  passed  May  2,  1852,  and  other  Acts  supple- 
mental thereto,  under  which  said  bonds  were  issued. 

That  said  bonds,  by  the  terms  of  said  Acts,  became  due  and  payable  on 
the  second  day  of  May,  1862,  and  no  provision  has  been  made  for  the  pay- 
ment thereof.  The  holders  of  said  bonds  and  coupons  have  applied  to 
former  Legislatures  to  provide  some  way  for  the  settlement  of  the  aforesaid 
indebtedness,  and  your  committee  have  carefully  examined  the  proceedings 
of  the  various  committees  to  whom  the  matter  has  heretofore  been  referred, 
and  have  been  unable  to  discover  any  well  founded  objection  to  any  part 
of  this  claim;  on  the  contrary,  all  the  arguments  which  have  been  adduced, 
based  upon  facts,  militate  strength  in  favor  of  the  justice  thereof. 

In  1862  the  subject  was  discussed  by  Governor  Downey  in  his  annual 
message,  in  which  he  says,  after  summing  up  the  total  amount  of  this 
indebtedness — making  it  $218,468  54:  'These  bonds  mature  in  1862;  the 
faith  of  the  State  is  pledged  to  their  payment,  and  if  Congress  will  not 
assume  this  debt,  as  it  properly  should,  the  State  ought  to  make  provisions 
for  its  liquidation" — which  part  of  the  Governor's  message  was  referred  to  a 
select  committee  of  the  Assembly,  who,  after  a  thorough  examination  of 
the  subject,  reported  a  bill  similar  to  the  one  which  your  committee  have 
considered,  and  recommended  its  passage. 

Said  special  committee  consisted  of  the  present  Lieutenant-Governor  of 
the  State,  the  present  Attorney-General,  and  Messrs.  Hillyer,  Morrison,  and 
Worthington. 

The  holders  of  these  bonds  and  coupons  claim  that  they  were  entitled  to 


319 

the  money  therefor  when  the  same  become  due,  but  owing  to  the  embar- 
rassed condition  of  the  finances  of  the  State,  they  have  been  and  now  are 
wilUng  to  accept  bonds  of  the  State  therefor,  as  provided  in  the  bill 
referred  to  your  committee. 

Your  committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  settlement  of  these  claims  with 
the  holders  cannot  longer  be  delayed  without  great  injury  to  the  credit  and 
a  serious  violation  of  the  faith  of  the  State,  which  has  been  uncondition- 
ally and  unqualifiedly  pledged  for  their  redemption. 

Therefore  they  report  back  the  bill  and  recommend  its  passage. 

JOHN  P.  JONES,  Chairman. 
GEORGE  S.  EVANS, 
W.  E.  LOVETT, 

Of  the  Committee. 

INDIAN  WAR  CLAIMS. 

The  Treasurer  last  year  reported  the  amount  allowed  by  the  United 
States,  and  to  be  paid  this  State  upon  Indian  war  claims,  to  be  two  hun- 
dred and  twenty-nine  thousand  nine  hundred  and  eighty-seven  dollars  and 
sixty-seven  cents  ($229,987  67) ;  and  the  Treasurer,  at  the  same  time, 
reported  the  contract  with  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  for  bringing  that  sum  of 
money  to  California,  and  he  advised  the  Governor  and  the  Legislature,  that 
in  case  the  United  States  should  pay  in  legal  tender  notes,  insurance 
upon  the  same  during  their  transmission  from  New  York  would  be  neces- 
sary. 

The  United  States  having  paid  in  notes,  it  was  agreed  that  Wells,  Fargo 
&  Co.  should  have  and  might  make  a  claim  against  the  State  for  such 
amount  as  they  paid  for  insurance. 

Wells,  Fargo  &  Co,  have  received $229,987  67 

And  charged  for  services $2,299  87 

For  insurance,  four  per  cent.. 9.198  51 

— $11,498  38 

Leaving  a  balanceof $218,489  29 

This  amount  was  paid  to  the  State  in  notes,  while  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co. 
retain  the  amount  of  their  charge,  eleven  thousand  four  hundred  and  ninety- 
eight  dollars  and  thirty-eight  cents  ($11,498  38),  subject  to  final  settlement 
with  the  State. 

War  bonds  and  certificates  have  been  presented  for  payment,  to  date,  to 
the  amount  of  one  hundred  and  ninety-two  thousand  ibwo  hundred  and 
eighty-eight  dollars  and  fifty  cents  ($192,288  50),  which  have  been  surren- 
dered for  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  two  thousand  one  hundred  and  sixty- 
six  dollars  and  sixty-two  cents  ($102,166  62),  being  the  amount  allowed  by 
the  United  States  thereon,  less  the  five  per  cent  deducted  under  the  Act  of 
the  Legislature  of  April  ninth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-two. 

Paid  to  claimants ..$102,166  62 

Five  per  cent  retained 5,377  54 

Balance  in  fund  for  redemption  of  bonds  and  certificates,  exclusive  of  said  five 
percent 45,905  26 

Against  the  retaining  said  five  per  cent  many  of  the  claimants  have  pro- 
tested on  the  ground  that  the  State  had  no  right  to  reduce  the  amount 
allowed  them  by  the  United  States,  or  to  subject  any  portion  of  it  to  the  use 
of  the  State.  The  validity  of  this  reason  seems  hardly  open  to  question, 
but  the  law  has  been  complied  with,  and  the  five  per  cent  retained. 


320 

The  smallness  of  the  exaction  from  each  of  the  claimants  may  induce 
them  in  the  main  to  avoid  the  expenses  of  prosecuting  the  matter;  still  the 
subject  should  receive  the  attention  of  the  Legislature,  as  it  hardly  befits 
the  State  to  exact  the  five  per  cent,  when  the  bond  guarantees  to  the  holder 
whatever  may  be  allowed  by  the  United  States. 

The  war  debt  of  the  State  may  now  be  summed  up  as  follows: 

Old  war  debt,  as  per  statement  included  in  report  (see  Exhibit  O) $218,468  54 

Amount  of  bonds  issued  under  the  Act  of  1857 354,475  19 

Certificates  and  audited  accounts  not  bonded 75,000  GO 

Cash  paid  by  California 156,207  85 

$804,151  58 
The  net  amount  received  into  the  State  Treasury  from  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment, $218,149  67  will  extinguish 426,866  89 

Making  the  total  Indian  war  debt $377,284  69 

Of  this  amount  only  two  hundred  and  eighteen  thousand  four  hundred 
and  sixty-eight  dollars  and  fifty-four  cents  ($218,468  54),  is  properly 
chargeable  as  State  debt. 

There  have  been  so  many  references,  by  the  Governor  and  other  State 
officers  of  California  in  the  various  State  papers,  to  the  various  phases  of 
these  California  war  claims,  that  I  can  only  refer  to  them  generally,  and 
hence  among  other  record  refer  to  them  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Page  12,  et  seq.,  Senate  Journal  (fourth  session),  1853. 

Pages  13,  39,  and  459,  Senate  Journal  (fifth  session),  1854. 

Pages  62  to  69,  331  to  333,  and  371,  Senate  Journal  (sixth  session),  1855.. 

Pages  25,  361,  407,  and  597,  Assembly  Journal  (sixth  session),  1855. 

Pages  27,  and  226  to  232,  Senate  Journal  (seventh  session),  1856. 

Page  384,  Assemby  Journal  (seventh  session),  1856. 

Pages  29,  36,  and  37,  Senate  Journal  (eighth  session),  1857. 

Pages  63,  69,  302,  303,  314,  and  467,  Senate  Journal  (ninth  session),  1858. 

Page  43,  Assembly  Journal  (tenth  session),  1859. 

Pages  35  and  665,  Senate  Journal  (tenth  session),  1859. 

Page  406,  Senate  Journal  (eleventh  session),  1860. 

Page  594,  Senate  Journal  (twelfth  session),  1861. 

Pages  23  to  27,  and  34,  Senate  Journal  (thirteenth  session),  1862. 

Page  32,  Senate  Journal  (fourteenth  session),  1863. 

Page  37,  Assembly  Journal  (seventeenth  session),  1867-1868. 


EXHIBIT  No.  4. 

Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.    S.  R.  10. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     December  12,  1881. 

Mr.  Grover  asked  and  by  unanimous  consent  obtained  leave  to  bring  in 
the  following  joint  resolution;  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs: 

JOINT  RESOLUTION 

To  authorize  the  Secretary  of  War  to  ascertain  and  report  to  Congress  the 
amount  of  money  expended  and  indebtedness  assumed  by  the  State  of 
Oregon  in  repelling  invasions^  suppressing  insurrection  and  Indian  hos- 
tilities, enforcing  the  laws,  and  protecting  the  public  property. 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be  and  he 


321 

is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  cause  to  be  examined  and  adjusted 
all  the  accounts  of  the  State  of  Oregon  against  the  United  States  for  money 
expended  and  indebtedness  assumed  in  organizing,  arming,  equipping, 
supplying  clothing,  subsisting,  transporting,  and  paying  either  the  volun- 
teer or  militia  forces,  or  both,  of  said  State  called  into  active  service  by  the 
Governor  thereof  after  the  fifteenth  day  of  April,  eighteen  hundred  and 
sixty-one,  to  aid  in  repelling  invasions,  suppressing  insurrections  and  Indian 
hostilities,  enforcing  the  laws,  and  protecting  the  public  property  in  said 
State  and  upon  its  borders,  except  during  the  Modoc  war. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  Secretary  of  War  shall  also  examine  and  adjust  the 
accounts  of  the  State  of  Oregon  for  all  other  expenses  necessarily  incurred 
on  account  of  said  forces  having  been  called  into  active  service  as  herein 
mentioned,  including  the  claims  assumed  or  paid  by  said  State  to  encour- 
age enlistments,  and  for  horses  and  any  other  property  lost  or  destroyed 
while  in  the  line  of  duty  by  said  forces;  provided,  that  in  order  to  enable 
the  Secretary  of  War  to  fully  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  there 
shall  be  filed  in  the  War  Department,  by  the  Governor  of  said  State  or  a 
duly  authorized  agent,  an  abstract,  accompanied  with  proper  certified  copies 
of  vouchers  or  such  other  proof  as  may  be  required  by  said  Secretary, 
showing  the  amount  of  all  such  expenditures  and  indebtedness,  and  the 
purposes  for  which  the  same  were  made. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  Secretary  of  War  shall  report  in  writing  to  Congress, 
at  the  earliest  practicable  date,  for  final  action,  the  results  of  such  examin- 
ation and  adjustment,  together  with  the  amounts  which  he  may  find  to 
have  been  properly  expended  for  the  purposes  aforesaid. 


Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.    S.  R.  13. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     December  13,  1881. 

Mr.  Fair  asked  and  by  unanimous  consent  obtained  leave  to  bring  in  the 
following  joint  resolution;  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Military  Affairs: 

JOINT  RESOLUTION 

To  authorize  the  Secretary  of  War  to  ascertain  and  report  to  Congress  the 
amount  of  money  expended  and  indebtedness  assumed  by  the  State  of 
Nevada  in  repelling  invasions,  suppressing  insurrection  and  Indian  hos- 
tilities, enforcing  the  lavjs,  and  protecting  the  public  property. 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be  and  he  is 
hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  cause  to  be  examined  and  adjusted  all 
the  accounts  of  the  State  of  Nevada  against  the  United  States  for  money 
expended  and  indebtedness  assumed  in  organizing,  arming,  equipping, 
supplying,  clothing,  subsisting,  transporting,  and  paying  either  the  volun- 
teers or  militia,  or  both,  of  the  late  Territory  of  Nevada  and  of  the  State  of 
Nevada,  called  into  active  service  by  the  Governor  of  either  thereof  after 
the  fifteenth  day  of  April,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  to  aid  in  repel- 
ling invasions,  suppressing  insurrections  and  Indian  hostilities,  enforcing 
the  laws,  and  protecting  the  public  property  in  said  Territory  and  said 
State,  and  upon  the  borders  of  the  same. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  Secretary  of  War  shall  also  examine  and  adjust  the 
21"^ 


322 

accounts  of  the  late  Territory  of  Nevada  and  of  the  State  of  Nevada  for  all 
other  expenses  necessarily  incurred  on  account  of  said  forces  having  been 
called  into  active  service  as  herein  mentioned,  including  the  claims  assumed 
or  paid  by  said  Territory  and  said  State  to  encourage  enlistments,  and  for 
horses  and  other  property  lost  or  destroyed  while  in  the  line  of  duty  of  said 
forces;  provided,  that  in  order  to  enable  the  Secretary  of  War  to  fully 
comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  there  shall  be  filed  in  the  War 
Department,  by  the  Governor  of  Nevada  or  a  duly  authorized  agent,  an 
abstract,  accompanied  with  proper  certified  copies  of  vouchers  or  such  other 
proof  as  may  be  required  by  said  Secretary,  showing  the  amount  of  all  such 
expenditures  and  indebtedness,  and  the  purposes  for  which  the  same  were 
made. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  Secretary  of  War  shall  report  in  writing  to  Congress, 
at  the  earliest  practicable  date,  for  final  action,  the  results  of  such  examin- 
ation and  adjustment,  together  with  the  amounts  which  he  may  find  to 
have  been  properly  expended  for  the  purposes  aforesaid. 


EXHIBIT  No.  5. 

Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.    S.  1673. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     April  11,  1882. 
Mr.  Grover,  from  the  Committee  on  Military  Aff'airs,  reported  the  follow- 
ing bill,  which  was  read  the  first  and  second  times  by  unanimous  consent: 

A  BILL 

To  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  examine  and  report  to  Congress 
the  amount  of  all  claims  of  the  States  of  Texas,  Oregon,  and  Nevada,  and 
the  Territories  of  Washington  and  Idaho,  for  money  expended  and  indebt- 
edness assumed  by  said  States  and  Territories  in  repelling  invasions  and 
suppressing  Indian  hostilities.. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury is  hereby  authorized  and  directed,  with  the  aid  and  assistance  of  the 
Secretary  of  War,  to  cause  to  be  examined  and  investigated  all  the  claims 
of  the  States  of  Texas,  Oregon,  and  Nevada,  and  the  Territories  of  Wash- 
ington and  Idaho,  against  the  United  States  of  America,  for  moneys 
alleged  to  have  been  expended  and  for  indebtedness  alleged  to  have  been 
assumed  by  said  States  and  Territories  in  organizing,  arming,  equipping, 
supplying,  clothing,  subsisting,  transporting,  and  paying  the  volunteer  and 
military  forces  of  said  States  and  Territories  called  into  active  service  by 
the  proper  authorities  thereof,  between  the  fifteenth  day  of  April,  in  the 
year  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one  and  the  date  of  this  Act,  to  repel 
invasions  and  to  suppress  insurrections  and  Indian  hostilities  in  said  States 
and  Territories  and  upon  their  borders,  including  all  proper  expenses  nec- 
essarily incurred  by  said  States  and  Territories  on  account  of  said  forces 
having  been  so  called  into  active  service  as  aforesaid,  and  also  all  proper 
claims  paid  or  assumed  by  said  States  and  Territories  for  horses  and 
equipments  actually  lost  by  said  forces  while  in  the  line  of  duty  in  active 
service  (excepting  and  excluding  therefrom  any  claim  said  State  of  Ore- 
gon may  have  for  money  expended  and  indebtedness  assumed  or  incurred 
in  suppressing  Modoc  Indian  hostilities  during  the  Modoc  Indian  war,  and 


323 

in  defending  that  State  from  invasion  by  said  Indians  during  the  years 
eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-two  and  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy- 
three,  which  were  submitted  to  and  passed  upon,  by  either  approval  or 
rejection,  by  Inspector-General  James  A.  Hardie,  United  States  Army). 
Said  accounts  for  and  on  behalf  of  said  State  of  Texas  shall  be  confined 
to  claims  arising  since  the  twentieth  day  of  October,  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-five,  and  for  and  on  behalf  of  said  Territories  of  Idaho  and 
Washington  for  said  claims  arising  in  the  years  eighteen  hundred  and 
seventy-seven  and  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-eight. 

Sec.  2.  That  no  higher  rate  shall  be  allowed  for  the  services  of  said 
forces,  and  for  supplies,  transportation,  and  other  proper  expenses,  than 
was  allowed  and  paid  by  the  United  States  for  similar  services  in  the  same 
grade  and  for  the  same  time  in  the  United  States  Army  serving  in  said 
States  and  Territories,  and  for  similar  supplies,  transportation,  and  other 
proper  expenses  during  the  same  time  furnished  the  United  States  Army 
in  the  same  country;  and  no  allowance  shall  be  made  for  services  of  such 
forces  except  for  the  time  during  which  they  were  engaged  in  active  ser- 
vice in  the  field ;  and  no  allowance  shall  be  made  for  the  services  of  any 
person  in  more  than  one  capacity  at  the  same  time,  or  for  any  expend- 
itures for  which  the  Secretary  of  War  shall  decide  there  was  no  necessity 
at  the  time  and  under  all  the  circumstances. 

Sec.  3.  That  to  enable  the  said  officers  to  make  the  examination  and 
investigation  herein  authorized,  the  Governors  of  the  said  States  and  Ter- 
ritories, respectively,  or  their  duly  authorized  agents,  shall  file  with  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  abstracts  and  statements  of  all  such  claims  by 
said  States  and  Territories,  showing  the  amounts  of  such  expenditures 
and  indebtedness  and  the  purposes  for  which  they  were  made,  and  accom- 
panied with  proper  vouchers  and  evidence. 

Sec.  4.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall,  at  the  earliest  practi- 
cable time,  report  to  Congress  for  final  action  the  results  of  such  examina- 
tion and  investigation,  and  the  amount  or  amounts  found  to  have  been 
properly  expended  for  the  purposes  aforesaid;  provided,  that  whenever  the 
examination  of  the  accounts  of  any  State  or  Territory  hereinbefore  men- 
tioned shall  have  been  completed,  the  same  shall  be  separately  reported  to 
Congress,  without  reference  to  the  final  examination  of  the  accounts  of 
any  other  State  or  Territory. 

Sec.  5.  That  any  military  services  performed  and  expenditures  on  ac- 
count thereof  incurred  during  the  Territorial  organization  of  Nevada,  and 
paid  for  or  assumed  by  either  said  Territory  or  said  State  of  Nevada,  shall 
be  also  included,  and  examined,  and  reported  to  Congress  in  the  same 
manner  as  like  services  and  expenditures  shall  be  examined  and  reported 
for  the  State  of  Nevada. 


Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.    Senate.    Report  No.  575. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.    May  12, 1882 — Ordered  to  be  printed, 
Mr.  Grover,  from  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  submitted  the  fol- 
lowing 

KEPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  S.  1673.] 

The  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  to  whom  were  referred  Senate  Bill 
1144,  and  Senate  Joint  Resolutions  10  and  13,  "  to  authorize  an  examination 


324 

and  adjustment  of  the  claims  of  the  States  of  Kansas,  Nevada,  Oregon, 
and  Texas,  and  of  the  Territories  of  Idaho  and  Washington,  for  repelling 
invasions  and  suppressing  insurrections  and  Indian  hostilities  therein,"  sub- 
mit the  following  report: 

OREGON. 

It  appears  by  the  report  of  the  Adjutant-General,  United  States  Army, 
of  April  3,  1882,  that  one  regiment  of  cavalry,  one  regiment  of  infantry, 
and  one  independent  company  of  cavalry  were  raised  in  the  State  of  Oregon 
during  the  late  war  of  the  rebellion,  and  that  the  expenses  incident  thereto 
have  never  been  reimbursed  said  State  by  the  United  States;  and  that  the 
claims  therefor  have  never  been  heretofore  presented  by  said  State  for 
audit  and  payment  by  the  United  States,  as  per  report  of  the  Secretary  of 
War  of  April  15,  1882,  and  of  the  Third  Auditor  of  the  Treasury  of  April  8, 
1882.  Under  Section  3489  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  the  claim  for  expendi- 
tures so  incurred  by  said  State  cannot  now  be  presented  for  audit  and  pay- 
ment without  legislation  by  Congress.  In  addition  thereto  there  are  some 
unadjusted  claims  of  said  State  growing  out  of  the  Bannock  and  Umatilla 
Indian  hostilities  therein  in  1877  and  1878,  evidenced  by  a  communication 
of  the  Secretary  of  War,  of  date  last  aforesaid,  and  some  unadjusted 
balances  pertaining  to  the  Modoc  war,  not  presented  for  audit  to  General 
James  A.  Hardie,  approximating  the  sum  of  $5,000. 

NEVADA. 

It  appears  by  the  report  of  the  Adjutant-General,  United  States  Army, 
of  February  25,  1882,  that  one  regiment  of  cavalry  and  one  battalion  of 
infantry  were  raised  in  the  late  Territory  of  Nevada  during  the  late  war  of 
the  rebellion,  and  that  the  expenses  of  raising,  organizing,  and  placing  in 
the  field  said  forces  were  never  paid  by  said  Territory,  but  were  assumed 
and  paid  by  the  State  of  Nevada,  and  that  none  of  said  expenses  so  incurred 
by  said  Territory,  and  assumed  and  paid  by  said  State,  have  ever  been 
reimbursed  the  State  of  Nevada  by  the  United  States,  and  that  no  claims 
therefor  have  ever  been  heretofore  presented  by  either  said  Territory  or  said 
State  for  audit  and  payment  by  the  United  States.  Under  Section  3489 
of  the  Revised  Statutes,  hereinbefore  referred  to,  the  payment  of  these 
claims  is  barred  by  limitation. 

These  forces  were  raised  to  guard  the  overland  mail  route  and  emigrant 
road  to  California,  east  of  Carson  City,  and  to  do  other  military  service  in 
Nevada,  and  were  called  out  by  the  Governor  of  the  late  Territory  of 
Nevada  upon  requisitions  therefor  by  the  Commanding-General  of  the 
Department  of  the  Pacific,  and  under  authority  of  the  War  Department,  as 
appears  by  copies  of  official  correspondence  furnished  to  your  committee  by 
the  Secretary  of  War  and  the  General  commanding  the  Division  of  the 
Pacific;  and  it  further  appears  that  there  are  some  unadjusted  claims  of  the 
State  of  Nevada  for  expenses  growing  out  of  the  so  called  White  River 
Indian  war  of  1875,  and  aggregating  $17,650  98,  and  of  the  so  called  Elko 
Indian  war  of  1878  therein,  and  aggregating  $4,654  64,  and  which  sums,  it 
appears  by  the  official  statement  of  the  Controller  of  said  State  of  Nevada, 
were  expended  and  paid  out  of  the  Treasury  of  said  State. 

TEXAS. 

The  unadjusted  claims  of  the  State  of  Texas,  provided  for  by  this  bill, 
are  those  which  accrued  subsequent  to  October  14, 1865.     These  have  been 


325 

heretofore  the  subject-matter  of  much  correspondence  between  the  State 
authorities  of  Texas  and  the  authorities  of  the  United  States,  and  have 
several  times  received  the  partial  consideration  of  both  branches  of  Con- 
gress, but  without  reaching  any  finality,  never  having  been  audited  or  fully 
examined,  and  consequently  no  payment  on  account  thereof  has  been  made. 

These  claims  are  referred  to  in  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  No.  74,  second  session 
Forty-sixth  Congress,  and  in  the  executive  documents  therein  cited. 

It  appears  by  the  official  correspondence  exhibited  in  the  document 
referred  to,  and  copies  of  official  correspondence  from  the  State  authorities 
of  Texas,  and  submitted  to  your  committee,  that  the  expenses  for  which 
the  State  of  Texas  claims  reimbursement  were  incurred  by  the  authorities 
thereof  under  its  laws,  and  for  the  proper  defense  of  the  frontier  of  said 
State  against  the  attacks  of  numerous  bands  of  Indians  and  Mexican 
marauders.  These  claims  approximate  the  sum  of  $1,027,375  67,  and  were 
incurred  between  October  14,  1865,  and  August  31, 1877. 

WASHINGTON   AND   IDAHO. 

The  volunteer  troops  in  Washington  and  Idaho  were  in  the  field  during 
Indian  hostilities  in  1877  and  1878,  in  said  Territories,  by  orders  of  the 
local  authorities  thereof.  While  these  volunteers  were  not  mustered  into 
the  regular  service  of  the  United  States  Army,  they  were  attached  to  the 
command  of  United  States  troops  in  the  Department  of  the  Columbia,  and 
acted  with  said  troops,  rendering  valuable  and  faithful  services  during 
said  wars,  under  the  orders  and  immediate  command  of  officers  of  the 
Kegular  Army  of  the  United  States,  as  appears  by  copies  of  orders  in  the 
hands  of  your  committee. 

The  obligation  of  the  General  Government  to  defend  each  State  is 
acknowledged  to  be  included  in  the  Constitutional  obligation  to  maintain 
the  "  common  defense,^^  by  a  long  series  of  Acts  of  Congress  making  appro- 
priations to  cover  the  expenses  of  States  and  Territories  of  the  Union  which 
have  raised  troops  and  have  incurred  liabilities  in  defending  themselves 
against  Indian  hostilities  and  other  disturbances. 

The  bill  herewith  reported  provides  for  an  examination  of  the  claims  and 
accounts  of  the  States  and  Territories  therein  named  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  acting  in  connection  with  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  that 
they  report  the  amount  of  money  necessarily  expended  and  indebtedness 
properly  assumed  in  organizing,  supplying,  and  sustaining  volunteers  and 
militia  called  into  active  service  by  each  of  them  in  repelling  invasions 
and  suppressing  Indian  hostilities  therein,  during  the  periods  named. 

This  bill  is  carefully  guarded  against  the  assumption  by  the  United 
States  of  unnecessary  liabilities,  and  fixes  the  pay  of  volunteers  and  mili- 
tia of  these  several  States  and  Territories  on  the  basis  of  the  pay  of  regular 
troops. 

Your  committee  therefore  report  the  present  original  bill  as  a  substitute 
for  Senate  Bill  1144  and  Senate  Joint  Resolutions  10  and  13,  which  hereto- 
fore have  been  under  consideration  by  said  committee,  having  the  same 
objects  as  provided  for  by  this  bill,  and  recommend  its  passage. 


326 
EXHIBIT  No.  6. 

Public— No  125. 

AN  ACT 

To  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  examine  and  report  to  Congress 
the  amount  of  all  claims  of  the  States  of  Texas,  Colorado,  Oregon,  Nebraska^ 
California,  Kansas,  and  Nevada,  and  the  Territories  of  Washington  and 
Idaho,  for  money  expended  and  indebtedness  assumed,  by  said  States  and 
Territories  in  repelling  invasions  and  suppressing  Indian  hostilities,  and 
for  other  purposes. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
is  hereby  authorized  and  directed,  with  the  aid  and  assistance  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  War,  to  cause  to  be  examined  and  investigated  all  the  claims  of  the 
States  of  Texas,  Colorado,  Oregon,  Nebraska,  California,  Kansas,  and  Ne- 
vada, and  the  Territories  of  Washington  and  Idaho,  against  the  United 
States  of  America,  for  moneys  alleged  to  have  been  expended  and  for  in- 
debtedness alleged  to  have  been  assumed  by  said  States  and  Territories  in 
organizing,  arming,  equipping,  supplying,  clothing,  subsisting,  transporting^ 
and  paying  the  volunteer  and  military  forces  of  said  States  and  Territories 
called  into  active  service  by  the  proper  authorities  thereof,  between  the  fif- 
teenth day  of  April,  in  the  year  1861,  and  the  date  of  this  Act,  to  repel  inva- 
sions and  Indian  hostilities  in  said  States  and  Territories  and  upon  their 
borders,  including  all  proper  expenses  necessarily  incurred  by  said  States 
and  Territories  on  account  of  said  forces  having  been  so  called  into  active 
service  as  aforesaid,  and  also  all  proper  claims  paid  or  assumed  by  said  States 
and  Territories  for  horses  and  equipments  actually  lost  by  said  forces  while 
in  the  line  of  duty  in  active  service  (excepting  and  excluding  therefrom  any 
claim  said  State  of  Oregon  may  have  for  money  expended  and  indebted- 
ness assumed  or  incurred  in  suppressing  Modoc  Indian  hostilities  during 
the  Modoc  Indian  War,  and  in  defending  that  State  from  invasion  by  said 
Indians  during  the  years  1872  and  1873,  which  were  submitted  to  and 
passed  upon,  by  either  approval  or  rejection,  by  Inspector-General  James 
A.  Hardie,  United  States  Army).  Said  accounts  for  and  on  behalf  of  said 
State  of  Texas  shall  be  confined  to  claims  arising  since  the  twentieth  day 
of  October,  1865,  and  shall  include  the  necessary  expenses  of  defense 
against  Mexican  raids  or  invasions  as  well  as  those  for  defense  against 
Indian  hostilities,  and  for,  and  on  behalf  of,  said  Territories  of  Idaho  and 
Washington  for  said  claims  arising  in  the  years  1877  and  1878. 

Sec.  2.  That  no  higher  rate  shall  be  allowed  for  the  services  of  said 
forces,  and  for  supplies,  transportation,  and  other  proper  expenses,  than  was 
allowed  and  paid  by  the  United  States  for  similar  services  in  the  same 
grade  and  for  the  same  time  in  the  United  States  Army  serving  in  said 
States  and  Territories,  and  for  similar  supplies,  transportation,  and  other 
proper  expenses  during  the  same  time  furnished  the  United  States  Army 
in  the  same  country;  and  no  allowance  shall  be  made  for  services  of  such 
forces  except  for  the  time  during  which  they  were  engaged  in  active  service 
in  the  field ;  and  no  allowance  shall  be  made  for  the  services  of  any  person 
in  more  than  one  capacity  at  the  same  time,  or  for  any  expenditure  for 
which  the  Secretary  of  War  shall  decide  there  was  no  necessity  at  the  time 
and  under  all  the  circumstances. 


327 

Sec.  3.  That  to  enable  the  said  officers  to  make  the  examination  and 
investigation  herein  authorized,  the  Governors  of  the  said  States  and  Terri* 
tories,  respectively,  or  their  duly  authorized  agents,  shall  file  with  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  abstracts  and  statements  of  all  such  claims  by 
said  States  and  Territories,  showing  the  amounts  of  such  expenditures  and 
indebtedness,  and  the  purposes  for  which  they  were  made,  and  accompanied 
with  proper  vouchers  and  evidence. 

Sec.  4.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall,  at  the  earliest  prac- 
ticable time,  report  to  Congress  for  final  action  the  results  of  such  examina- 
tion and  investigation,  and  the  amount  or  amounts  found  to  have  been 
properly  expended  for  the  purposes  aforesaid ;  provided,  that  whenever  the 
examination  of  the  accounts  of  any  State  or  Territory  hereinbefore  men- 
tioned shall  have  been  completed,  the  same  shall  be  separately  reported 
to  Congress  without  reference  to  the  final  examination  of  the  accounts  of 
any  other  State  or  Territory. 

Sec.  5.  That  any  military  services  performed  and  expenditures  on  ac- 
count thereof,  incurred  during  the  Territorial  organization  of  Nevada,  and 
paid  for  or  assumed  by  either  said  Territory  or  said  State  of  Nevada,  shall 
be  also  included,  and  examined  and  reported  to  Congress  in  the  same 
manner  as  like  services  and  expenditures  shall  be  examined  and  reported 
for  the  State  of  Nevada. 

Approved  June  27,  1882. 

EXHIBIT  No.  7. 

State  of  California,  Executive  Department, 
Sacramento,  Cal.,  March  31,  1884. 

In  addition  to  the  claims  due  the  State  of  California  from  the  United 
States  enumerated  in  the  preamble  to  Assembly  Concurrent  Resolution  No. 
20,  and  adopted  by  the  Legislature  of  California  on  March  3, 1883,  Captain 
John  Mullan,  of  San  Francisco,  California,  now  residing  at  Washington 
City,  D.  C,  is  hereby  appointed  agent  and  attorney  to  represent  the  interest 
of  the  State  of  California  before  the  proper  authorities  of  the  United  States 
at  Washington  City,  D.  C,  in  the  matter  of  all  moneys  or  balances  that 
have  been  paid,  or  which  remain  due  and  to  be  or  liable  to  be  paid  in  whole 
or  in  part  by  the  State  of  California,  on  account  of  any  Indian  war  bonds 
or  coupons  issued  by  the  State  of  California  under  the  authority  of  the 
Legislature  thereof,  in  its  Acts  approved  fifteenth  February,  1851,  third 
May,  1852,  and  twenty-fifth  April,  1857,  respectively,  for  the  suppression 
of  Indian  hostilities  within  said  State,  for  the  purpose  of  recovering  from 
the  United  States  for  the  State  of  California  a  sum  equivalent  thereto  in 
payment  or  satisfaction  of  the  whole  thereof;  together  with  all  interest  which 
is  now  or  which  may  hereafter  become  due,  payable,  or  allowed  thereon,  or 
on  any  part  thereof,  by  the  United  States;  and  also,  to  recover  from  the 
United  States  all  interest  that  is  now  or  which  may  hereafter  become  due, 
payable,  or  allowed  by  the  United  States  to  the  State  of  California,  on 
account  of  any  part  of  the  money  expended  or  liabilities  assumed  by  this 
State  on  account  of  the  war  of  the  rebellion. 

The  compensation  of  Captain  Mullan  for  his  services  in  the  foregoing 
named  matters  is  fixed  at  twenty  per  cent  of  the  moneys  that  may  be  col- 
lected by  him  or  paid  to  the  State  of  California  in  any  of  these  premises. 
Provided,  however,  that  this  State  shall  not  in  any  event  become  liable  for 
any  expenses,  fees,  or  salaries  of  any  nature  whatever  other  than  such 
contingent  commission. 


328 

This  appointment  and  commission  shall  be  subject  to  the  ratification  of 
ihe  Legislature,  otherwise  to  be  void. 

GEORGE  STONEMAN, 
Governor  of  California. 

EXHIBIT  No.  8. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  S,  relative  to  directing  the  Governor  to  fix 
the  com'pensation  for  services  rendered  by  Captain  John  Mullan,  in  collec- 
tions of  claims  due  the  State  of  California  from  the  United  States. 

[Adopted  March  3,  1885.] 

Whereas,  The  Governor  and  State  Surveyor-General  of  this  State, 
respectively,  have  heretofore  appointed  Captain  John  Mullan,  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, California,  agent  and  attorney  to  represent  the  State  of  California 
before  the  proper  authorities  of  the  United  States,  at  Washington,  D.  C, 
in  the  matter  of  the  claims  of  the  State  of  California  against  the  United 
States,  growing  out  of  past  Indian  hostilities,  and  for  interest  on  moneys 
heretofore  expended  by  this  State  on  account  of  military  operations  herein 
and  borders  hereof,  and  in  recovering  all  land  fees  heretofore  illegally  paid 
to  the  United  States  by  this  State;  and  whereas,  in  pursuance  of  Concur- 
rent Resolution  Number  Twelve,  adopted  February  twenty-sixth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  eighty-one,  and  in  pursuance  of  Assembly  Joint  Resolution 
Number  Thirty,  adopted  March  ninth,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-two, 
James  E.  Hale  and  Thomas  M.  Nosier  were  duly  appointed  and  commis- 
sioned agents  on  behalf  of  the  State  of  California  and  the  Governor  thereof, 
by  themselves  and  their  duly  constituted  agents,  to  collect  from  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  the  cost,  charges,  and  expenses  properly 
incurred  by  the  State  of  California  for  enrolling,  subsisting,  clothing,  sup- 
plying, arming,  equipping,  paying,  and  transporting  its  troops  employed  in 
aiding  to  suppress  the  insurrection  against  the  United  States;  and  whereas, 
said  James  E.  Hale  and  Thomas  M.  Nosier  have  duly  constituted  said 
Captain  John  Mullan  their  agent  and  attorney,  in  pursuance  of  the  fore- 
going authority  conferred  on  them,  in  their  names,  places,  and  stead,  to 
demand  and  receive  all  said  moneys  from  said  Government  of  the  United 
States,  and  in  and  about  the  said  premises  to  act  as  their  agent  therein; 
therefore,  be  it 

Section  1.  Resolved  by  the  Senate  of  California,  the  Assembly  concurring, 
That  the  appointments  so  conferred  upon  Captain  John  Mullan  by  the 
Governor  and  Surveyor-General,  respectively,  are  hereby  ratified  and  con- 
firmed, and  the  Governor  of  this  State  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and 
directed  to  fix  the  compensation  for  the  services  by  Captain  John  Mullan 
heretofore  and  that  may  be  by  him  hereafter  rendered,  at  twenty  per  cent 
of  each  of  the  sums  or  claims  that  may  be  by  him  collected  from  the  United 
States,  and  to  pay  to  him  such  per  cent  out  of  the  moneys  that  may  be 
collected  by  him  and  paid  to  this  State  on  account  of  each  of  the  foregoing 
matters  respectively;  provided,  however,  that  this  State  shall  not,  in  any 
event,  become  liable  for  any  expenses,  fees,  and  salaries  of  any  nature 
whatever,  other  than  such  contingent  commission. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  proper  State  officers  of  the  State  of  California  be  and 
they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  deliver  to  Captain  John  Mul- 
lan, or  to  his  authorized  agent,  all  the  original  vouchers,  certificates,  and 


329 

papers  of  every  kind  and  nature  relating  to  the  claims  of  this  State  against 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  for  or  on  account  of  each  of  the  fore- 
going matters  respectively,  and  also  all  Controller's  warrants  that  have 
been  heretofore  paid  and  canceled,  and  which  may  be  needed  to  perfect 
any  of  the  claims  of  this  State  against  the  United  States,  represented  by 
him. 

Sec.  3.  That  said  State  officers  shall  prepare  and  take  from  Captain 
John  Mullan,  or  from  his  authorized  agent,  a  receipt  in  writing,  bound  in 
a  book  same  as  they  keep  in  their  offices  for  all  such  papers  as  aforesaid, 
and  which  shall  show  what  the  papers  are  in  each  case,  the  date  thereof, 
by  what  Board  of  Examiners  passed,  the  amount  and  date  of  the  warrant, 
and  in  whose  favor  drawn. 

JOHN  DAGGETT, 

President  of  the  Senate. 

W.  H.  PARKS, 

Speaker  of  the  Assembly. 

Attest:  THOS.  L.  THOMPSON, 

Secretary  of  State. 
[Indorsed:] 

Senate  concurrent  Resolution  No.  3,  passed  the  Senate  February  25, 
A.  D.  1885. 

EDWIN  F.  SMITH, 

Secretary  of  the  Senate. 

Passed  the  Assembly  February  26,  A.  D.  1885. 

FRANK  D.  RYAN, 

Clerk  of  the  Assembly. 

This  resolution  was  received  by  the  Governor  this  second  day  of  March, 
A.  D.  1885. 

W.  W.  MORELAND, 
Private  Secretary  of  the  Governor. 

State  of  California,  | 

Department  of  State.    ) 

I,  Thos.  L.  Thompson,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of  California,  do 
hereby  certify  that  I  have  carefully  compared  the  annexed  copy  of  Senate 
Concurrent  Resolution  No.  3,  adopted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
California  at  its  twenty-sixth  session,  with  the  original  now  on  file  in  my 
office,  and  that  the  same  is  a  correct  transcript  therefrom  and  of  the  whole 
thereof.  Also,  that  this  authentication  is  in  due  form  and  by  the  proper 
officer. 

Witness  my  hand  and  the  Great  Seal  of  State,  at  office  in  Sacramento, 
California,  the  thirteenth  day  of  March,  A.  D.  1885. 

THOS.  L.  THOMPSON, 

Secretary  of  State. 

By  A.  E.  Shattuck,  Deputy. 
[seal.] 


330 
EXHIBIT  No.  9. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  Res.  172.    Printer's  No.,  5692. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     February  25, 1884 — Read  twice,  refer- 
red to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Rosecrans  introduced  the  following  joint  resolution: 

JOINT  RESOLUTION 

Amendatory  of  the  Act  of  June  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and 
eighty-two,  entitled  "An  Act  to  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to 
examine  and  report  to  Congress  the  amount  of  all  claims  of  the  States  of 
Texas,  Colorado,  Oregon,  Nebraska,  California,  Kansas,  and  Nevada,  and 
the  Territories  of  Washington  and  Idaho,  for  money  expended  and  indebt- 
edness assumed  by  said  States  and  Territories  in  repelling  invasion  and 
suppressing  Indian  hostilities,  and  for  other  purposes." 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
of  America^  in  Congress  assembled^  That  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  June 
twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-two,  entitled  "An  Act  to 
authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  examine  and  report  to  Congress 
the  amount  of  all  claims  of  the  States  of  Texas,  Colorado,  Oregon, 
Nebraska,  California,  Kansas,  and  Nevada,  and  the  Territories  of  Wash- 
ington and  Idaho,  for  money  expended  and  indebtedness  assumed  by  said 
States  and  Territories  in  repelling  invasion  and  suppressing  Indian  hostil- 
ities, and  for  other  purposes,"  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  amended  by 
striking  out  the  words  "April,  in  the  year  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,'^ 
and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  the  words  "January,  in  the  year  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  fifty-one." 

EXHIBIT  No.  10. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  No.  807. 

CLAIMS  OF  THE  STATES  OF  TEXAS,  COLORADO,  OREGON, 
NEBRASKA,  CALIFORNIA,  KANSAS,  AND  NEVADA,  AND  THE 
TERRITORIES  OF  WASHINGTON  AND  IDAHO. 

March  18,  1884 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on 
the  state  of  the  Union  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Rosecrans,  from  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  submitted  the 
following 

REPORT. 
[To  accompany  H.  Res.  No.  172.] 

Your  committee  having  had  under  consideration  the  above  resolution^ 
report  as  follows: 

The  Act  which  the  joint  resolution  proposes  to  amend  was  passed  as  a 
substitute  for  Senate  Bills  Nos.  1673,  1310,  1144,  and  87,  and  Senate  Joint 
Resolution  No.  10,  upon  which  was  made  a  favorable  report.  No.  133,  Forty- 
seventh  Congress,  and  House  Bills  Nos.  422,  1688,  1908,  1909,  1936,  and 
3839,  and  House  Joint  Resolutions  Nos.  27,  34,  and  47,  upon  which  was 
made  a  favorable  report.  No.  141,  Forty-seventh  Congress. 


331 

The  date  of  April  15,  1861,  was  fixed  as  the  earliest  limit  of  the  claims 
in  question,  because  said  claims  of  the  various  States  and  Territories  men- 
tioned in  the  above  bills  and  joint  resolutions  were  on  account  of  expendi- 
tures subsequent  to  that  date.  It  is  only  requisite  to  extend  the  benefits 
of  this  Act  to  the  State  of  California,  whose  expenditures  were  mostly,  if 
not  altogether,  during  the  ten  years  anterior  to  the  date  fixed  therein.  The 
State  of  California  had  a  bill  for  payment  of  the  unpaid  balance  due  her 
for  expenditures  in  Indian  wars  in  1851  and  1852,  before  the  War  Claims 
Committee  of  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  upon  which  a  favorable  report 
was  made,  but  no  further  action  taken,  and  consequently  the  name  of  the 
State  of  California  did  not  appear  in  this  general  bill  as  reported  by  the 
Committee  on  Military  Afi'airs.  Subsequently,  when  the  bill  came  to  the 
House,  the  name  of  California  was  inserted  as  an  amendment,  on  motion 
of  one  of  the  members  of  the  California  delegation  who  did  not  know  that 
the  expenditures  made  by  that  State  were  prior  to  the  date  mentioned  in 
the  bill  (April  15,  1861). 

From  the  report.  No.  1847,  Forty-seventh  Congress,  it  will  be  seen  that 
California  had  established  a  claim  which  is  not  within  the  provisions  of 
this  Act.  It  also  appears  from  a  letter  of  the  Third  Auditor,  dated  April 
11,  1873  (see  Appendix  A),  that  Governor  McDougal  called  into  service  a 
battalion  called  the  Mariposa  Volunteers,  for  the  purpose  of  suppressing 
the  insurrection  of  the  Mariposa  Indians,  which  was  mustered  into  service 
January  24, 1851,  and  served  until  July  25, 1851,  the  expense  of  which  the 
State  assumed,  but  which  in  good  conscience  should  have  been  paid  by  the 
Government  of  the  United  States.  It  is  also  stated  in  a  letter  to  the  Chair- 
man of  this  committee  (see  Appendix  B)  that  the  State  in  1857  assumed, 
by  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  April  twenty-fifth,  the  payment  of  certain  other 
expenses  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  of  a  similar  character  but 
of  a  small  amount,  the  payment  of  which  was  provided  for  in  1862  ;  but  as 
the  expenses  were  incurred  prior  to  1861,  California  could  not  obtain  relief 
under  the  Act  in  question. 

To  give  to  California  the  benefits  and  advantages  which  the  Act  accords 
to  other  States  and  Territories  under  like  circumstances,  it  will  be  sufficient 
to  amend  the  Act  by  adding  at  the  end  of  Section  1  of  said  Act — 

"Provided  that  all  such  claims  of  the  State  of  California  arising  on  and 
after  the  first  day  of  January,  1851,  shall  be  examined  and  investigated  as 
aforesaid." 

Not  doubting  that  California  ought  to  be  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the 
Act  the  same  as  the  other  States  specified  therein,  your  committee  recom- 
mend that  the  joint  resolution  do  pass. 

Appendix  A. 

Treasury  Department,  Third  Auditor's  Office,         ) 
Washington.  D.  C,  April  11,  1873.  j 
Sir:  In  reply  to  your  letter  of,  the  nineteenth  of  March,  addressed  to  the  Secretary  of 
War,  and  referred  to  this  office,  I  have  to  inform  you  that  the  battalion  of  Mariposa 
Vols.,  under  command  of  Maj.  .Tames  Savage,  was  in  service  from  twenty-fourth  of  Jan- 
uary, 1851,  until  twenty-fifth  July,  1851. 

The  Captains  commanding  in  the  battalion  were  John  Boling,  William  Dill,  and  John 
J.  Kuykendall. 

Very  respectfully, 

A.  M.  GANGEWER, 
Acting  Auditor. 
E.  J.  Smith,  Esq.,  No.  217  D  street,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Appendix  B. 

Dear  General:  Permit  me  to  call  your  attention  to  House  Joint  Resolution  No.  172, 
introduced  February  25, 1884,  and  referred  to  your  honorable  Committee  on  Military 


332 

Affairs,  and  to  some  of  the  reasons,  in  so  far  at  least  as  same  relates  to  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, why  said  resolutions  should  pass,  to  wit : 

There  are  several  instances  wherein  between  the  middle  of  January,  1851,  and  middle  of 
April,  1861,  calls  were  made  upon  the  citizens  of  California  to  organize  themselves  in  said 
State  to  suppress  Indian  hostilities,  and  for  which  the  State  of  California  incurred  some 
expense  and  liability,  and  for  which  there  is  not  now  any  adequate  legislation  to  reimburse 
said  State.  Among  other  cases,  1  would  cite  that  of  the  "  Mariposa  Battalion,"  called  out 
when.  Governor  McDougal  was  Governor  of  that  State,  about  the  middle  of  January,  1851, 
and  mustered  into  the  service  on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  January,  1851,  and  served  from 
January  24, 1851,  to  July  25,  1851,  as  per  letter  of  Third  Auditor  of  April  11,  1873,  inclosed 
as  an  exhibit.  These  volunteers  provided  their  own  horses  and  equipments.  The  camp 
supplies  and  baggage-trains  were  furnished  by  the  State  of  California.  This  military 
force  was  called  into  existence  by  the  State  authorities,  but  its  maintenance  was  at  the 
expense  of  the  General  Government.  Maj.  Ben.  McCuUough  was  offered  the  command  of 
the  battalion,  but  he  declined  it. 

Such  men  in  California  at  that  time  as  James  D.  Savage  volunteered  and  served  as 
Major;  John  J.  Kuykendall,  John  Boling,  and  William  Dill  as  Captains  ;  Reuben  Chand- 
ler, Gilbert,  and  Crawford  as  Lieutenants;  A.  Bronson  and  Lewis  Leach  as  Surgeons, 
and  Drs.  Pfifer  and  Black  as  Assistant  Surgeons;  with  Barbour,  Brinnell, McKee,  Wozen- 
craft,  Hays,  and  other  distinguished  Calif ornians,  many  of  whom  are  known  to  you. 
Among  others  in  said  battalion  were  Col.  Thomas  Henley  (father  of  Hon.  Barclay  Hen- 
ley, your  colleague  now  in  Congress),  Wm.  B.  Lewis,  of  Fresno,  and  W.  J.  Campbell  of 
Kings  River,  Tmare  County,  California,  and  others. 

I  also  cite  you  the  instances  of  the  expenses  incurred  by  the  State  of  California  in  the 
suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  certain  counties  of  California  assumed  by  said  State 
April  25,  1857,  and  payment  provided  for  May  21, 1862.  So  that  the  date  of  incurring  such 
expense  was  prior  to  April  15, 1861,  but  payment  made  by  California  subsequent  to  April 
15, 1861,  and  which  case,  therefore,  would  not  strictly  come  within  the  purview  of  the  Act 
of  June  27, 1882,  and  which  expenses  have  not  yet  been  reimbursed  said  State  by  any  ade- 
quate provision  by  Congress. 

While  the  expenses  in  these  cases  are  not  large,  equity  and  good  conscience  both  enjoin 
that  some  ample  legislative  provision  should  be  now  made  to  fully  meet  the  same. 

In  my  judgment  this  resolution  (H.  Res.  172),  if  passed,  will  be  ample  to  meet  all  such 
cases. 

The  Act  of  Congress  which  your  joint  resolution  seeks  to  amend  has  passed  through  the 
careful  scrutiny  of  both  the  Military  Committee  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  House  and  both 
branches  of  Congress  before  it  became  a  law,  and  hence  it  may  be  assumed  to  fully  repre- 
sent the  views  of  Congress  as  to  the  principle  and  measure  of  relief  to  be  granted  said 
States  in  said  Act,  and  Resolution  No.  172  is  intended  simply  to  change  the  date  of  April 
15,  1861,  in  said  Act,  to  January  15,  1851,  so  as  to  admit  such  cases  as  may  exist  in  any  of 
said  States  between  the  two  dates  named  in  said  resolution  and  of  the  classes  as  now  pro- 
vided for  by  law. 

The  history  of  the  Act  of  June  27,  1882,  now  sought  to  be  amended,  might  be  appropri- 
ately referred  to  by  me  with  a  view  of  stating  to  your  honorable  committee  why  the 
fifteenth  April,  1861,  came  to  be  named  in  said  Act  at  all. 

As  State  agent  for  Oregon  and  Nevada  in  December,  1881,  I  believe  that  under  Section 
3489  of  the  Revised  Statutes  the  States  of  Oregon  and  Nevada  could  not  recover  from  the 
United  States  the  expenses  by  them  incurred  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  1861-'65, 
without  additional  legislation,  and  because  said  two  States  had  not  then  filed  their  claims 
against  the  United  States  for  the  expenditure  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion  and  under 
the  Act  of  July  27, 1861.  Whereupon,  at  my  request,  on  December  10, 1881,  Senator  Grover 
of  Oregon,  introduced  in  the  Senate,  Senate  Joint  Resolution  No.  10  for  Oregon  (copy 
inclosed  herewith).  On  December  13, 1881,  Senator  Fair  also  introduced  Senate  Joint  Reso- 
lution No.  13  for  Nevada  (copy  inclosed  herewith);  and  on  February  8,  1882,  Senator 
Plumb  introduced  Senate  Bill  No.  1144,  which,  while  including  both  Oregon  and  Nevada, 
also  included  Kansas,  Texas,  Idaho,  and  Washington  Territories.  (See  copies  inclosed 
herewith.)  But,  as  Senator  Plumb  had  on  December  5,  1881,  introduced  Senate  Bill  No. 
87,  which,  like  all  the  foregoing  recited  bills,  were  referred  to  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Military  Affairs,  said  Senate  Bill  No.  87  was  on  February  7, 1882,  reported  back  to  the  Senate 
by  Senator  Cockrell  in  Senate  Report  No.  133,  first  session.  Forty-seventh  Congress,  and 
acted  upon  by  the  Senate  as  a  separate  measure  (see  copy  of  report  that  accompanied 
said  Senate  Bill  No.  87,  herewith  inclosed),  and  passed  Senate  thirtieth  March,  1882. 

Now,  in  none  of  these  bills  was  any  provision  made  for  California,  or  any  reference  in 
any  thereof  to  said  State.  Thereafter,  to  wit,  on  May  12,  1882,  Senator  Grover  reported 
back  a  substitute  (Senate  No.  1673)  for  said  Senate  Resolution  No.  10  and  Senate  Resolution 
No.  13  and  Senate  bill  No.  1144,  and,  as  will  appear  from  copy  herewith  inclosed,  and  of  his 
Report  No.  575,  first  session.  Forty-seventh  Congress,  and  in  which  report  he  left  out 
Kansas,  and  because  said  State  had  been  reported  on  as  a  separate  measure,  and  acted  on 
separately,  as  before  recited. 

Now,  in  these  Senate  Joint  Resolutions  Nos.  10  and  13,  without  any  particular  attention 
being  paid  to  the  date,  reference  was  had  more  especially  to  the  expenses  incurred  during 
the  war  of  the  rebellion  by  Oregon  and  Nevada,  and  which  expenses  began  on  April  15, 
1861;  the  date  of  April  15,  1861,  named  in  said  resolution,  chanced  thereby  to  become  the 
date  named  in  Senator  Grover's  substitute.  As  this  was  being  discussed  in  the  Senate 
(see  Record,  vol.  No.  13,  pages  6  to  8,  first  session.  Forty-eighth  Congress),  it  received  sun- 


383 

dry  amendments,  and  by  which  Colorado,  Nebraska,  and  California  were  included,  and  in 
that  shape  it  passed  the  Senate  on  eighth  June,  1882.  In  the  House  there  were  also 
sundry  bills  and  resolutions  introduced  and  to  accomplish  the  same  ends,  and  all  referred 
to  your  Military  Committee,  to  wit:  House  Bills  Nos.  422,  1688,  1908,  1909,  1936,  and  House 
Resolutions  Nos.  27  and  34,  and  for  all  of  which  Mr.  Upson,  from  your  Military  Commit- 
tee, on  July  31, 1882,  reported  a  substitute  (H.  R.  No.  3839),  with  a  report  thereon  (No.  141), 
copies  of  all  of  which  bills,  resolutions,  and  reports  are  inclosed  herewith.  This  House 
substitute  (No.  3839)  was  not  acted  on  in  the  House,  but  when  the  aforesaid  Senate  Bill 
No.  1673  (which  passed  the  Senate)  reached  the  House,  the  friends  of  the  Senate  Kansas 
Bill  (No.  87)  sought  to  have  said  Senate  bill,  in  which  Kansas  was  not  included,  amended 
so  as  to  include  Kansas;  this  amendment  was  made  in  the  House  on  the  twentieth  day 
of  June,  1882  (see  extract  of  Record,  June  22,  herewith);  whereupon  this  Senate  bill,  so 
amended,  returned  to  the  Senate  for  its  concurrence,  and  it  was  concurred  in  by  the  Senate 
on  the  twentieth  day  of  June,  1882,  and  was  approved  and  became  the  law  on  June  27, 
1882;  and  which  law  House  Resolution  No.  172  seeks  to  amend  simply  by  changing  the 
date  named  therein,  and  not  otherwise. 

This  will  account  for  the  fact  that  no  special  attention  was  given  to  the  date  named 
therein,  April  15,  1861,  and  the  manner  in  which  California  came  in  under  its  provisions. 
The  fact  is  that  there  have  not  been  any  Indian  hostilities  in  (California  since  April  15, 1861, 
but  all  occurred  prior  to  that  date,  and  unless  said  Act  be  amended  as  resolved  in  said 
House  Resolution  No.  172,  it  is  simply  a  dead  letter  to  the  State  of  California.  The  inten- 
tion of  Congress  in  said  Act  was  to  provide  for  all  cases  of  the  class  named  in  said  Act  not 
heretofore  provided  for,  and  if  there  be  any  cases  named  in  said  Act  in  the  other  States 
enumerated  in  said  Act,  as  I  submit  do  now  exist  in  the  State  of  California,  then  there  is 
every  good  reason  why  said  resolution  should  be  unanimously  and  favorably  recom- 
mended for  passage. 

I  therefore  suggest  in  any  case  that  it  be  enacted,  even  if  its  provisions  be  limited  only 
to  the  State  of  California. 

Respectfully, 

JOHN  MULLAN. 
State  Agent  for  California. 

Hon.  W.  S.  Rosecrans,  Chairman  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 


EXHIBIT  No.  11. 

House  of  Representatives,  U.  S., 
Washington,  D.  C,  January  21,  1884. 

Captain  John  Mullan,  1310  Conn.  Avenue,  Washington,  D.  C: 

Dear  Captain:  I  have  received  both  your  pamphlet  and  the  certified 
copies  of  the  resolutions  of  the  California  Legislature.  One  copy  of  the 
resolution  was  introduced  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims; 
the  other  I  have.  You  sent  me  two.  Our  committee  has  authorized  me, 
in  my  discretion,  to  facilitate  the  passage  of  Joint  Resolution  H.  R.  172  by 
smoothing  the  phraseology,  and  adding  a  mandate  on  the  Secretary  of 
War  to  have  an  investigation  made. 

Very  truly  yours, 

W.  S.  ROSECRANS. 


EXHIBIT  No.  11>^. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  50. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     December   10,    1883 — Read  twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Rosecrans  introduced  the  following  bill: 


334 

A  BILL 

To  indemnify  the  State  of  California  for  balances  paid  and  remaining  due  on 
account  of  indebtedness  incurred  in  the  Indian  wars  in  said  State,  for  the 
payment  of  which  the  State  of  California  issued  bonds  in  the  year  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-two. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury- 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Cahfor- 
nia,  or  to  her  duly  authorized  agent,  the  sum  of  four  thousand  one  hundred 
and  seventy-two  dollars  and  fifty-six  cents,  being  the  amount  of  five  bonds, 
eight  hundred  and  thirteen,  eight  hundred  and  fourteen,  eight  hundred 
and  fifteen,  eight  hundred  and  sixteen,  and  eight  hundred  and  nineteen, 
issued  by  the  State  of  California  on  the  twenty- first  day  of  May,  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-two,  in  conformity  with  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  of 
said  State  authorizing  the  Treasurer  thereof  to  issue  bonds  for  the  payment 
of  expenses  incurred  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  certain 
counties  of  said  State,  approved  April  twenty-fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and 
fifty-seven,  which  amount  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the 
Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  be  paid  said  State,  or  to  her  duly 
authorized  agent,  only  upon  the  surrender  of  said  bonds  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury. 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  69.    Printer's  No.,  69. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.  December  10, 1883 — Read  twice,  refer- 
red to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Rosecrans  introduced  the  following  bill:  * 

A  BILL 

To  indemnify  the  State  of  California  for  balances  paid  and  remaining  due  on 
account  of  indebtedness  incurred  in  the  Indian  wars,  for  the  payment  of 
which  said  State  issued  bonds  in  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-one  and  eight- 
een hundred  and  fifty-two,  a  part  of  which  and  of  accrued  interest  thereon 
remain  unpaid  owing  to  delays  occasioned  by  War  Department  rulings, 
under  the  Act  of  Congress  of  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-four. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  sum  of  two  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  dollars,  or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  necessary  therefor,  be 
and  the  same  is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  Treasury 
not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  indemnify  the  State  of  California  for  balances 
paid  and  remaining  due  and  to  be  paid  by  said  State  on  account  of  Indian 
war  bonds  issued  by  said  State  under  the  Acts  of  the  Legislature  of  eighteen 
hundred  and  fifty-one  and  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-two,  and  accrued 
interest  thereon,  recognized  by  the  Act  of  Congress  of  August  fifth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  fifty-four,  but  unpaid  owing  to  delay  due  to  War  Department 
rulings. 

Sec.  2.  That  upon  his  draft  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  cause 
the  aforesaid  sum  to  be  paid  over  to  the  Treasurer  of  the  State  of  Califor- 
nia, who  shall  promptly  apply  the  same  to  the  payment  of  said  balances 
of  indebtedness,  and  with  least  possible  delay  forward  the  vouchers  there- 


335 

for,  accompanied  by  an  abstract  and  account-current,  and  any  balance  of 
said  sum  remaining  unexpended  and  to  be  repaid,  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  who,  upon  receipt  thereof,  after  due  verification  of  the  same,  shall 
order  the  amount  to  be  passed  to  the  credit  of  said  Treasurer  of  the  State 
of  California,  in  final  settlement  of  his  accounts;  provided,  that  the  Gov- 
ernor of  said  State,  at  the  time  of  rendering  said  accounts,  shall  certify 
upon  said  abstracts  that  the  vouchers  therein  specified  are  accounts  justly 
due  and  paid  by  the  State  of  California. 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.     H.  R.  6099.    Printer's  No.,  6856. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     March  24, 1884 — Read  twice,  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  authorize  and  require  the  payment  in  cash  to  the  State  of  California  of 
the  sum  of  two  hundred  and  nineteen  thousand  and  seventy-five  dollars  and 
ninety-eight  cents,  for  moneys  expended  and  liabilities  assumed  by  said 
State,  to  be  paid  by  the  United  States,  for  the  common  defense,  prior  to 
August  thirty-first,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  required  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, or  to  its  authorized  agent,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated,  the  sum  of  two  hundred  and  nineteen  thousand  and 
seventy-five  dollars  and  ninety-eight  cents  in  cash,  which  sum  said  State 
expended  or  assumed  to  pay  on  account  of  services  rendered  and  supplies 
furnished  to  suppress  Indian  hostilities  in  certain  counties  of  said  State 
prior  to  the  thirty-first  day  of  August,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  and 
for  which  said  State  duly  issued  bonds,  the  amount  of  which  have  not  yet 
been  fully  paid  by  the  United  States  to  said  State,  or  to  the  citizens  thereof, 
and  which  bonds  the  State  of  California  promised  to  pay  out  of  any  money 
to  be  appropriated  by  Congress  for  the  payment  of  such  expenses,  and  as 
provided  for  by  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  said  State  approved  April 
twenty-fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-seven,  authorizing  the  Treasurer  of 
California  to  issue  bonds  for  the  payment  of  expenses  incurred  in  the  sup- 
pression of  Indian  hostilities  in  certain  counties  of  said  State. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  laws  or  parts  of  laws,  and  all  rulings  or  decisions  of 
any  Department  of  the  Government,  or  of  any  officer  thereof,  inconsistent 
with  the  foregoing  section,  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  repealed  and 
annulled. 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  6669.    Printer's  No.,  7644. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     April  21,  1884 — Read  twice,  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 


336 

A  BILL 

To  reappropriate  the  unexpended  balance  heretofore  appropriated  hy  Congress 
for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  the  State  of  California. 

Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  unexpended  balance  of 
eight  thousand  three  hundred  and  sixty-two  dollars  and  sixteen  cents  of 
the  appropriation  made  by  Congress  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty- 
four  (10th  Statutes,  pages  582  and  583),  and  August  eighteenth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  fifty-six  (U.  S.  Statutes,  vol.  11,  page  91),  for  the  suppression 
of  Indian  hostilities  in  the  State  of  California,  and  carried  to  the  surplus 
fund,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  re  appropriate  d ;  and  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  the  said  sum  to  the 
State  of  California  upon  the  surrender  by  said  State  to  said  Secretary  of 
bonds  and  coupons  issued  by  said  State  in  part  payment  of  said  expenses, 
which  bonds  and  coupons  have  been  redeemed  and  paid  by  said  State  in 
said  sum;  and  in  the  event  that  bonds  and  coupons  so  issued  and  redeemed 
and  paid  by  said  State  in  said  sum  have  been  canceled  and  destroyed  by 
the  authority  of  the  Legislature  thereof,  then  the  aforesaid  sum  shall  be 
paid  said  State  upon  her  furnishing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  satis- 
factory evidence  that  bonds  and  coupons  so  issued  have  been  redeemed^ 
paid,  canceled,  and  destroyed  to  the  amount  of  said  unexpended  balance, 
under  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Legislature  of  said  State. 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  session.    H.  E,.  7975. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     January  19,  1885 — Read  twice,  refer- 
red to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  indemnify  the  State  of  California  on  account  of  indebtedness  incurred  by 
her  in  the  Indian  wars  therein,  and  which  has  heretofore  been  paid  by  said 
State.    . 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, or  to  her  duly  authorized  agent,  the  sum  of  money  heretofore  paid 
by  the  State  of  California  in  the  redemption  of  the  Indian  war  bonds  issued 
by  said  State  under  the  Acts  of  her  Legislature  approved  February  fifteenth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-one,  and  May  third,  eighteen  hundred  and 
fifty-two,  and  of  the  certificates  of  indebtedness  issued  in  connection  there- 
with, on  account  of  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  said  State  prior 
to  January  first,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-four,  and  which  bonds  and 
certificates  have  heretofore  been  redeemed  and  paid  by  said  State,  together 
with  interest  thereon  at  six  per  centum  per  annum  from  the  dates  of  such 
payment  by  said  State,  to  the  dates  of  the  payment  thereof  by  the  United 
States ;  provided,  that  the  sum  to  be  so  paid  by  the  United  States  to  said 
State  for  the  matters  herein  contained  shall  not  exceed  one  hundred  and 
ten  thousand  nine  hundred  and  forty-seven  dollars  and  thirty-eight  cents, 
which  amount  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury 


337 

not  otherwise  appropriated,  and  to  be  paid  to  said  State  upon  the  surrender 
by  her,  or  by  her  duly  authorized  agent,  of  said  bonds  and  of  said  certifi- 
cates of  indebtedness  to  the  Treasury  Department  of  the  United  States. 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session,    S.  809. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     December  19,  1883. 

Mr.  Miller  of  California  asked  and,  by  unanimous  consent,  obtained 
leave  to  bring  in  the  following  bill;  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs. 

A  BILL 

To  indemnify  the  State  of  California  for  balances  paid  and  remaining  due 
on  account  of  indebtedness  incurred  in  the  Indian  wars,  for  the  payment  of 
which  said  State  issued  bonds  in  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-one  and  eighteen 
hundred  and  fifty-tivo,  a  part  of  which  remain  unpaid  owing  to  delays  occa- 
sioned by  War  Department  rulings  under  the  Act  of  Congress  of  August 
fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty- four. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, or  her  duly  authorized  agents,  any  sum  found  due,  upon  investiga- 
tion, for  balances  alleged  to  have  been  paid  and  remaining  due  and  to  be 
paid  by  said  State  on  account  of  Indian  war  bonds  issued  by  said  State 
under  the  Acts  of  the  Legislature  of  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-one  and 
eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-two,  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities 
within  the  said  State  prior  to  the  first  of  January,  eighteen  hundred  and 
fifty-four,  and  recognized  by  the  Act  of  Congress  of  August  fifth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  fifty-four;  provided,  that  the  sum  so  paid  shall  not  exceed  in 
amount  the  sum  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars,  which  amount 
is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise 
appropriated,  and  to  be  settled  upon  proper  vouchers  to  be  filed  and  passed 
upon  by  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department. 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  811. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     December  19,  1883. 

Mr.  Miller  of  California  asked  and  by  unanimous  consent  obtained  leave 
to  bring  in  the  following  bill;  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Military  Aff'airs: 

A  BILL 

To  indemnify  the  State  of  California  for  balances  paid  and  remaining  due 
on  account  of  indebtedness  incurred  in  the  Indian  wars  in  said  State,  for 
the  payment  of  which  the  State  of  California  issued'  bonds  in  the  year 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-two. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Cali- 

22  "^ 


338 

fornia,  or  to  her  duly  authorized  agent,  the  sum  of  four  thousand  one  hun- 
dred and  seventy-two  dollars  and  fifty-six  cents,  being  the  amount  of  five 
bonds,  eight  hundred  and  thirteen,  eight  hundred  and  fourteen,  eight  hun- 
dred and  fifteen,  eight  hundred  and  sixteen,  and  eight  hundred  and  nine- 
teen, issued  by  the  State  of  California  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  May, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-two,  in  conformity  with  the  Act  of  the  Legisla- 
ture of  said  State  authorizing  the  Treasurer  thereof  to  issue  bonds  for  the 
payment  of  expenses  incurred  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in 
certain  counties  of  said  State,  approved  April  twenty-fifth,  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  fifty-seven,  which  amount  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money 
in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  be  paid  said  State,  or  to  her 
duly  authoftzed  agent,  only  upon  the  surrender  of  said  bonds  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  1917. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     March  24,  1884. 
Mr.  Miller  of  California  introduced  the  following  bill,  which  was  read 
twice  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  INIilitary  Affairs: 

A  BILL 

To  authorize  and  require  the  payment  to  the  State  of  California  of  the  sum 
of  two  hundred  and  forty-one  thousand  six  hundred  and  twenty-five  dollars 
and  eighty-tivo  cents,  for  moneys  expended  and  liabilities  assumed  by  said 
State  for  the  common  defense  prior  to  September  first,  eighteen  hundred  and 
fifty-six. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  required  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Califor- 
nia, or  to  its  authorized  State  agent,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated,  the  sum  of  two  hundred  and  forty-one  thousand 
six  hundred  and  twenty-five  dollars  and  eighty-two  cents,  in  cash,  which 
sum  said  State  expended  or  assumed  to  pay  on  account  of  services  rendered 
and  supplies  furnished  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  said  State 
prior  to  September  first,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-six,  and  for  which  said 
State  prior  to  said  date  duly  issued  bonds  and  coupons,  the  full  amount  of 
which  have  not  yet  been  paid  by  the  United  States  to  said  State,  or  to  the 
citizens  thereof,  and  which  bonds  and  coupons  were  authorized  to  be  issued 
by  the  Acts  of  the  Legislature  thereof,  approved  February  fifteenth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  fifty-one,  and  May  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-two, 
respectively,  and  as  more  particularly  set  forth  in  the  report  of  the  Con- 
troller of  said  State  to  the  Governor  thereof  under  date  of  May  twenty- 
seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-eight. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  laws  or  parts  of  laws,  and  all  rulings  or  decisions  of 
any  Department  of  the  Government,  or  of  any  officer  thereof,  inconsistent 
with  the  foregoing  section,  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  repealed  and 
annulled. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  1970. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     April  1,  1884. 

Mr.  Groome  introduced  the  following  bill;  which  was  read  twice  and 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs. 


339 

A  BILL 

For  the  payment  of  certain  coupons  of  certain  Indian  war  bonds  of  the  State 

of  California. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  directed  to  pay,  out  of  the  unexpended  balance  of  an 
appropriation  of  nine  hundred  and  twenty-four  thousand  two  hundred  and 
fifty-nine  dollars  and  sixty-five  cents  made  by  the  third  section  of  the  Act 
of  Congress,  approved  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-four,  the 
sum  of  one  thousand  and  ninety-two  dollars,  which  last  named  amount  is 
hereby  reappropriated,  to  the  lawful  holder  of  coupons  three,  four,  and  five 
of  two  Indian  war  bonds  numbered  respectively  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
four  and  one  hundred  and  thirty-six,  issued  by  the  State  of  California 
under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  thereof,  approved  May 
third,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty- two,  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostili- 
ties therein,  each  of  said  bonds  being  for  the  sum  of  one  hundred  dollars, 
and  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  seven  per  centum  per  annum;  and  of 
coupons  three,  four,  and  five  of  five  other  of  said  Indian  war  bonds  num- 
bered respectively  one  hundred  and  eighty-nine,  one  hundred  and  ninety, 
two  hundred  and  twenty-eight,  two  hundred  and  twenty-nine,  and  three 
hundred  and  eleven,  issued  by  said  State  under  the  provisions  of  said  Act 
of  its  Legislature,  each  of  said  last  mentioned  five  bonds  being  for  the  sum 
of  one  thousand  dollars,  and  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  seven  per 
centum  per  annum;  provided,  that  said  coupons  shall  not  be  paid  except 
out  of  any  amount  remaining  unapplied  of  the  appropriation  of  nine  hun- 
dred and  twenty-four  thousand  two  hundred  and  fifty-nine  dollars  and 
sixty-five  cents  heretofore  made.  .    ' 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  session.    H,  R.  8149. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     February  2, 1885 — Read  twice,  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  reappropriate  the  unexpended   balance  of  an   appropriation   made   by 

former  Acts  of  Congress. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and,  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  sum  of  eight  thousand 
three  hundred  and  sixty-two  dollars  and  sixteen  cents,  being  an  unex- 
pended balance  of  an  appropriation  made  by  the  Acts  of  Congress  approved 
August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-four,  and  August  eighteenth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-six  (United  States  Statutes,  vol.  10,  pages 
582  and  583,  and  vol.  11,  page  91),  "to  refund  to  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia expenses  incurred  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities,"  which  has 
heretofore  lapsed  and  been  covered  into  the  Treasury,  be  and  the  same  is 
hereby  reappropriated;  and  the  same  shall  be  paid  to  the  State  of  California 
upon  her  surrendering  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  the  bonds  and 
coupons  aggregating  said  sum,  which  have  been  heretofore  redeemed  and 
paid  by  said  State  on  account  of  the  suppression  of  the  hostilities  named 


340 

in  said  Acts;  provided^  that  the  sums  heretofore  paid  by  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia on  account  of  said  hostihties,  which  have  not  been  heretofore  repaid 
by  the  United  States,  shall  be  refunded  to  said  State,  with  interest  at  six 
per  centum  per  annum,  from  the  dates  of  such  payment  by  said  State  up 
to  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this  Act,  and  to  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in 
the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  upon  proper  evidence  of  such  pay- 
ments by  said  State  being  furnished  and  filed  by  her  with  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury. 

EXHIBIT  No.  12. 

HOUSE  BILL  No.  50. 

This  bill  was  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives  by  Hon.  W. 
S.  Rosecrans  of  California,  on  temth  December,  1883,  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs;  and  on  ninth  January,  1884,  reference  was 
changed  to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  has  for  its  object  to  grant 
to  the  State  of  California  a  specific  relief  and  as  set  forth  in  the  title  of 
said  bill. 

A  similar  bill.  No.  809,  was  also  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Senator 
Miller  of  California,  on  December  19, 1883,  and  was,  on  December  22, 1883, 
referred  by  Honorable  Senator  S.  B.  Maxey,  of  the  Committee  on  Military 
Affairs,  United  States  Senate,  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of  War,  for  a 
report,  and  who,  on  January  24,  1884,  in  reply  thereto,  transmits  a  letter 
from  the  honorable  Third  Auditor,  of  January  22,  1884,  and  which,  by 
order  of  the  Senate,  has  been  printed  for  the  use  of  the  Senate  and  House, 
and  constitutes  Miscellaneous  Senate  Document  No.  40,  first  session  Forty- 
vcighth  Congress,  and  to  which  is  appended  a  copv  (in  print)  of  said  Sen- 
ate Bill  No.  809. 

This  report  of  said  Third  Auditor  misapprehends  the  intentions  and  scope 
of  said  bill,  and  fails  to  include  and  give  to  your  honorable  committee  the 
full  information  and  facts  and  history  of  said  matters,  due,  evidently,  from 
the  fact  that  the  same  are  not  matters  of  record  in  the  Third  Auditor's 
office. 

This  same  subject  was  before  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  and  there  intro- 
duced by  Hon.  W.  S.  Rosecrans  of  California,  in  House  Bill  No.  2139, 

session.  Forty-seventh  Congress,  and  referred  to  House  Committee  on  War 
Claims. 

That  committee,  with  all  the  facts  before  it,  reported  back,  not  the  origi- 
nal bill,  but  in  lieu  thereof,  a  substitute,  to  wit:  H.  R.  No.  7241,  copy  of 
which  is  attached  hereto,  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  did  accompany 
same  on  January  11,  1883,  with  a  full,  detailed,  and  exhaustive  report 
thereon,  to  wit:  House  Report  No.  1847,  second  session.  Forty-seventh  Con- 
gress, copy  of  which  is  hereto  attached,  and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  in 
which  the  history  of  the  facts  are  set  forth  intelligently  and  fully,  and 
which  justified  the  action  of  said  committee  in  reporting  back  said  substi- 
tute, but  which  bill  failed  to  be  reached  for  action  before  the  adjournment 
of  the  Forty-seventh  Congress. 

Senate  Bill  No.  809,  and  House  Bill  No.  51,  are  exact  verbatim  copies  of 
said  House  substitute  No.  7241,  of  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  and  which 
bill  has  again  [on  December  10,  1883]  been  introduced  in  the  House  by 
Hon.  W.  S.  Rosecrans  of  California,  H.  R.  No.  51,  and  referred  to  the 
honorable  House  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  but  which,  on  January  9, 
1884,  was,  by  order  of  the  House  rereferred  to  the  honorable  House  Com- 
mittee on  War  Claims,  and  before  which  the  same  is  now  pending. 


341 

Wherefore,  I  now  respectfully  request  that  the  honorable  Committee  on 
War  Claims  of  the  House  of  Representatives  will  give  full  and  due  con- 
sideration to  said  House  Report  No.  1847,  herein  referred  and  inclosed 
herewith  by  copy,  as  embodying  the  history  of  the  facts  that  justify  the 
legislation  now  asked  for  by  California,  and  contained  in  the  said  House 
Bill  No.  51,  and  if  necessary,  I  ask  to  be  further  heard  in  these  premises. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

Agent  and  Attorney  for  the  State  of  California. 

To  the  honorable  Chairman,  and  members  of  the  Committee  on  War 
Claims,  U.  S.  House  of  Representatives. 


EXHIBIT  No.  13. 

House  of  Representatives,  U.  S.,  | 

Washington,  D.  C,  February  6,  1885.  j 

To  the  members  of  the  Committee  on  Appropriation,  U.  S.  H.  R.: 

Gentleman:  On  February  3,  1885,  I  addressed  the  honorable  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  a  letter,  a  copy  of  which  is  as  follows,  to  wit: 

House  of  Representatives,  U.  S.,  ) 

.  Washington,  D.  C,  February  3,  1885.  j 

Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury^  Washington,  D.  C. : 

Sir:  Please  inform  me,  and  immediately,  if  you  can,  what  amount  of  the  appropriation 
made  by  Congress  August  5,  1854,  and  August  18,  1856  (U.  S.  Statutes,  vol.  10,  page  582-3, 
and  vol.  11,  page  91), "  to  refund  to  the  State  of  California  expenses  incurred  in  suppressing 
Indian  hostilities,"  etc.,  has  not  been  heretofore  expended,  but  which  has  lapsed  and  been 
carried  into  the  Surplus  Fund  of  the  Treasury,  and  oblige, 

Yours  truly, 

BARCLAY  HENLEY, 

M.  C.  from  California. 


To  this  letter  I  received  a  reply,  which  is  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Treasury  Department.     ) 
February  5,  1885.  ] 
Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  House  of  Representatives: 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  third  instant,  asking  what  amount  of  the  appropria- 
tion made  by  Congress  by  the  Acts  of  August  5,  1854,  and  August  18,  1856,  "  to  refund  to 
the  State  of  California  expenses  incurred  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities,"  etc.,  remains 
unexpended,  I  have  to  inform  vou  that  it  appears  from  the  books  of  this  department  that 
there  is  now  in  the  Surplus  ^und,  of  the  moneys  formerly  appropriated  for  this  object, 
the  sum  of  $8,357  16. 

Very  respectfully, 

H.  Mcculloch,  secretary. 

And  all  of  which  I  now  submit  to  your  committee  in  support  of  H.  R. 
No.  8149,  by  me,  on  February  2,  1885,  introduced  into  the  House,  and  by 
'it  referred  to  your  committee  for  action. 

I  therefore  have  the  honor  to  request  that,  in  view  of  all  the  premises, 
your  honorable  committee  will  at  this  session  embody  in  your  appropria- 
tion bill  making  appropriations  for  the  "  Sundry  Civil  Expenses  of  the 
Government,"  the  contents  and  provisions  of  my  said  bill  H.  R.  8149,  which 
I  submit,  is  in  all  respects  meritorious  and  just,  and  that  your  favorable 
consideration  at  this  time  of  the  matters  therein  contained,  will  be  doing 
an  equity  (though  long  delayed)  to  the  State  of  California,  which  I,  in 
part,  represent. 


342 

The  words  "  sixty-two,"  in  line  three  of  my  said  printed  bill  8149,  should 
be  changed  so  as  to  read  "  fifty-seven,"  and  thereby  tally  with  the  said  let- 
ter of  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Yours  very  truly, 

BARCLAY  HENLEY, 
M.  C.  from  California. 


AMENDMENT  OF  MR.   HENLEY  TO  INDIAN  APPROPRIATION 

BILL,  H.  R.   5543. 

At  end  of  line  insert  as  follows:     (Page  — .) 

That  the  unexpired  balance  of  eight  thousand  three  hundred  and  fifty- 
seven  dollars  and  sixteen  cents  of  the  appropriation  made  by  Congress, 
August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-four  (10  Stat.  582),  as  modified 
by  Acts  of  August  18,  1856  (11  Stat.  91),  and  June  23, 1860  (12  Stat.  104), 
and  July  25,  1868  (15  Stat.  175),  and  March  3,  1881  (21  Stat.  510),  to 
redeem  California  Indian  war  bonds  issued  for  expenses  in  said  State 
incurred  prior  to  January  1,  1854,  and  carried  to  the  surplus  fund,  be  and 
the  same  is  hereby  reappropriated ;  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is 
hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  said  sum  to  the  State  of  California, 
upon  the  surrender  by  her  to  said  Secretary  of  bonds  and  coupons  issued 
by  her  in  payment  of  said  expenses,  which  have  been  heretofore  redeemed 
and  paid  by  said  State  in  said  sum,  and  not  heretofore  paid  by  the  United 
States ;  and  the  aforesaid  sum  shall  be  paid  said  State  upon  her  furnishing 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  satisfactory  evidence  that  bonds  and  coupons 
so  issued  have  been  redeemed,  paid,  and  canceled  by  said  State,  under  and 
by  the  authority  of  the  Legislature  thereof,  to  the  extent  of  said  unex- 
pended balance. 


EXHIBIT  No    14. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    Senate.    Mis.  Doc.  No.  40. 

LETTER  FROM  THE   SECRETARY   OF  AVAR, 

Transmitting  a  copy  of  the  report  of  the  Third  Auditor  of  the  Treasury 
upon  the  bill  (S.  809)  to  indemnify  the  State  of  California  for  balances  paid 
and  remaining  due  on  account  of  indebtedness  incurred  in  the  Indian  wars. 
January  25, 1884 — Reported  by  Mr.  Maxey  from  the  Committee  on  Mili- 
tary Affairs,  ordered  to  be  printed,  and  recommitted. 

War  Department,  \ 

Washington  City,  January  24,  1884.  j  . 

Sir:  Referring  to  so  much  of  your  communication  of  December  22, 1883, 
as  requests  information  upon  the  subject  of  Senate  Bill  No.  809,  "  to  indem- 
nify the  State  of  California  for  balances  paid  and  remaining  due  on  account 
of  indebtedness  incurred  in  the  Indian  wars,"  etc.,  I  have  the  honor,  in 
reply,  to  forward  copy  of  the  report  of  the  Third  Auditor  of  the  Treasury, 
dated  the  twenty-second  instant,  upon  the  bill,  which  it  is  hoped  will  aftbrd 
the  information  desired. 

A  similar  bill  having  been  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 


343 

and  the  subject  being  one  of  considerable  importance,  I  beg  to  request  that 
the  letter  of  the  Auditor  may  be  printed. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

ROBERT  T.  LINCOLN, 

Secretary  of  War. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Maxey,  of  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  United  States  Senate. 

Treasury  Department,  Third  Auditor's  Office, 
WashingtoiN,  D.  C,  January  22,  1884. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  return  ^^  *  *  -'A  bill  to  indemnify  the 
State  of  California  *  *  *,"  and  the  other  papers  referred  to  me  by  your 
direction. 

Notwithstanding  the  recitals  in  the  bill,  I  am  unable  to  perceive  that 
any  part  of  the  appropriation  was  due  to  the  State,  or  that  the  non-payment 
of  the  small  balance  of  the  appropriation  was  caused  by  "  delays  occasioned 
by  War  Department  rulings."  On  the  contrary,  the  facts  would  seem  to 
be  that  the  small  unpaid  balance  belonged  exclusively  to  the  holders  of  the 
yet  outstanding  California  bonds,  and  that  the  sole  reason  for  the  non- 
payment was  the  failure  by  a  few  of  such  holders  to  come  forward  and 
present  their  bonds  for  payment. 

A  brief  history  of  the  legislation  by  Congress  is  as  follows: 

The  original  Act,  August  5,  1854  (10  Stat.,  582-583),  directed  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  to  examine  and  ascertain  the  "  amount  of  expense  incurred 
and  now  actually  paid  "  by  the  State  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostili- 
ties within  the  State  prior  to  January  1,  1854,  and  to  pay  the  amount  so 
ascertained  into  the  State  Treasury,  but  not  to  exceed  $924,259  65. 

But,  as  shown  by  correspondence,  the  State  officials  determined  not  to 
present  its  claim  as  the  law  stood;  and  by  Act  of  August  18,  1856,  Sec.  8 
(11  Stat.  91),  the  law  was  changed  to  provide  that  the  appropriation  should 
be  used  to  pay  the  holders  of  the  war  bonds  which  the  State  had  issued  on 
account  of  such  expenses. 

An  amendment  was  made  by  Act  of  June  23,  1860  (12  Stat.,  104),  but 
it  w^as  of  minor  importance,  and  need  not  be  now  set  out. 

The  holders  of  the  great  bulk  of  the  bonds  presented  them  within  a  short 
time,  and  received  payment. 

A  period  of  more  than  three  years  then  elapsing  without  further  calls, 
the  appropriation  became  by  law  "  lapsed,"  and  the  unexpended  balance, 
$10,188  65,  was  therefore  carried  into  the  surplus  fund. 

Subsequently  a  few  bonds,  aggregating  not  over  $2,500,  were  presented 
to  this  office,  but  were  returned,  there  being  no  fund  for  payment;  and  on 
March  22,  1866,  the  Third  Auditor  recommended  to  the  Secretary  of  War 
to  ask  Congress  to  reappropriate  said  balance  of  $10,188  65. 

By  Act  of  July  25, 1868  (15  Stat,  175),  a  balance  of  $10,183  65  (five  dol- 
lars short)  was  reappropriated.  Only  one  person,  James  Steele,  presented 
any  bond,  and  he  was  paid  $538  11.  Again  the  appropriation  "lapsed" 
by  want  of  calls  upon  it  for  a  period  of  three  years;  and  on  July  1,  1874, 
the  balance,  $9,645  52,  was  carried  into  the  surplus  fund. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1881  (21  Stat.,  pages  510-511),  a  sufficient  amount 
of  the  unexpended  balance  was  reappropriated  to  pay  the  principal,  with 
interest  to  July  1, 1860,  of  four  bonds  described  by  denomination  and  serial 
numbers;  and  payment  was  accordingly  made  to  the  owner,  Frances  D. 
Bingham,  in  the  sum  of  $1,288  36,  leaving  the  balance  now  in  the  surplus 
fund,  $8,357  16. 


344 

I  do  not  know  why  Congress  allowed  interest  to  July  1,  1860,  on  Mrs. 
Bingham's  bonds.  On  the  others  interest  was  allowed  to  January  1,  1854; 
as  the  appropriation,  so  I  understand,  would  suffice  for  no  more,  having 
been  based  upon  the  showing  made  by  the  State  of  the  expense  incurred 
by  it  up  to  that  date. 

I  fail  to  perceive  that  the  State  had  any  right  in  the  unexpended  balance. 
Very  respectfully, 

A.  M.  GANGEWER,  Acting  Auditor. 

Hon.  Robert  T.  Lincoln,  Secretary  of  War. 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  809. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     December  19,  1883. 

Mr.  Miller  of  California  asked  and,  by  unanimous  consent,  obtained 
leave  to  bring  in  the  following  bill;  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs: 

A  BILL 

.  To  indewM'ify  the  State  of  California  for  balances  paid  and  remaining  due  on 
account  of  indebtedness  incurred  in  the  Indian  wars,  for  the  payment  of 
which  said  State  issued  bonds  in  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-one  and  eigh- 
teen hundred  and  fifty-two ,  o,  part  of  which  remain  unpaid  owing  to  delays 
occasioned  by  War  Department  ridings  under  the  Act  of  Congress  of  August 
fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-four. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  California, 
or  her  duly  authorized  agents,  any  sum  found  due,  upon  investigation,  for 
balances  alleged  to  have  been  paid  and  remaining  due  and  to  be  paid  by 
said  State  on  account  of  Indian  war  bonds  issued  by  said  State  under  the 
Acts  of  the  Legislature  of  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-one  and  eighteen 
hundred  and  fifty-two,  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  within  the 
said  State  prior  to  the  first  of  January,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-four, 
and  recognized  by  the  Act  of  Congress  of  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred 
and  fifty-four;  provided,  that  the  sum  so  paid  shall  not  exceed  in  amount 
the  sum  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars,  which  amount  is  hereby 
appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated, 
and  to  be  settled  upon  proper  vouchers  to  be  filed  and  passed  upon  by  the 
proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department. 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    Senate.    Report  No.  158. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.    February  12,  1884 — Ordered  to  be 
printed. 

Mr.  Maxey,  from  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  submitted  the  fol- 
lowing 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  S.  809.] 

The  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  to  which  was  referred  bill  S.  809, 
respectfully  submits  the  following  report: 


345 

On  December  22,  1883,  the  committee  addressed  a  communication  to  the 
Secretary  of  War,  requesting  to  be  furnished  with  such  information  in  respect 
to  the  matters  set  forth  in  this  bill  as  might  be  had  in  the  War  Department. 
On  the  twenty-fourth  of  January,  1884,  the  Secretary  replied  as  follows: 

War  Department,  Washington  City,  January  24,  1884. 

Sir:  Referring  to  so  much  of  vour  communication  of  December  22,  1883,  as  requests 
information  upon  the  subject  of  Senate  Bill  No.  809,  to  "idemnify  the  State  of  California 
for  balances  paid  and  remaining  due  on  account  of  indebtedness  incurred  in  the  Indian 
wars,"  etc.,  1  have  the  honor,  in  reply,  to  forward  copy  of  the  report  of  the  Third  Auditor 
of  the  Treasury,  dated  the  twenty-second  instant,  upon  the  bill,  which  it  is  hoped  will 
afford  the  information  desired. 

A  similar  bill  having  been  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  the  subject 
being  one  of  considerable  importance,  I  beg  to  request  that  the  letter  of  the  Auditor  rhay 
be  printed. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

ROBERT  T.  LINCOLN,  Secretary  of  War. 
Hon.  S.  B.  Maxey,  of  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  United  States  Senate. 

The  communication  of  the  Third  Auditor  therein  called  for  is  as  follows: 

Treasury  Department,  Third  Auditor's  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  January  22,  1884.     j 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  return    *    *    *    "A  bill  to  indemnify  the  State  of  California 

*^  *    *  "  and  the  other  papers  referred  to  me  by  your  direction. 

Notwithstanding  the  recitals  in  the  bill,  I  am  unable  to  perceive  that  any  part  of  the 
appropriation  was  due  to  the  State,  or  that  the  non-payment  of  the  small  balance  of  the 
appropriation  was  caused  by  "  delays  occasioned  by  War  Department  rulings."  On  the 
contrary,  the  facts  would  seem  to  be  that  the  small  unpaid  balance  belonged  exclusively  to 
the  holders  of  the  yet  outstanding  California  bonds,  and  that  the  sole  reason  for  the  non-pay- 
ment was  the  failure  by  a  few  of  such  holders  to  come  forward  and  present  their  bonds 
for  payment. 

A  brief  history  of  the  legislation  bv  Congress  is  as  follows : 

The  original  Act,  August  5,  1854  (lO  Stat.,  582,  583),  directed  the  Secretary  of  War  to 
examine  and  ascertain  the  "amount  of  expense  incurred  and  now  actually  paid"  by  the 
State  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  within  the  State  prior  to  January  1,  1854, 
and  to  pay  the  amount  so  ascertained  into  the  State  Treasury,  but  not  to  exceed  $924,259  65. 

But,  as  shown  by  correspondence,  the  State  officials  determined  not  to  present  its  claim 
as  the  law  stood;  and  by  Act  of  August  18,  1856,  Sec.  8  (11  Stat.,  91),  the  law  was  changed 
to  provide  that  the  appropriation  should  be  used  to  pay  the  holders  of  the  war  bonds  which 
the  State  had  issued  on  account  of  such  expenses. 

An  amendment  was  made  by  Act  of  June  23,  1860  (12  Stat.,  104),  but  it  was  of  minor 
iniportance,  and  need  not  be  now  set  out. 

The  holders  of  the  great  bulk  of  the  bonds  presented  them  within  a  short  time,  and 
received  payment. 

A  period  of  more  than  three  years  then  elapsing  without  further  calls,  the  appropriation 
became  by  law  "  lapsed,"  and  the  unexpended  balance,  $10,188  65,  was  therefore  carried  into 
the  surplus  fund. 

Subsequently  a  few  bonds,  aggregating  not  over  $2,500,  were  presented  to  this  office,  but 
were  returned,  there  being  no  fund  for  payment ;  and  on  March  22, 1866,  the  Third  Auditor 
recommended  to  the  Secretary  of  War  to  ask  Congress  to  reappropriate  said  balance  of 
$10,188  65. 

By  Act  of  July  25, 1868  (15  Stat.,  175),  a  balance  of  $10,183  65— five  dollars  short— was  reap- 
propriated.  Only  one  person,  James  Steele,  presented  any  bond,  and  he  was  paid  $538  11. 
Again  the  appropriation  "lapsed,"  by  want  of  calls  upon  it  for  a  period  of  three  years; 
and  on  July  1,  1874,  the  balance,  $9,645  52,  was  carried  into  the  surplus  fund. 

By  Act  of  March  3, 1881  (21  Stat.,  pages  510,  511),  a  sufficient  amount  of  the  unexpended 
balance  was  reappropriated  to  pay  the  principal,  with  interest  to  July  1, 1860,  of  four  bonds 
described  by  denomination  and  serial  numbers;  and  payment  was  accordinglv  made  to 
the  owner,  Frances  D.  Bingham,  in  the  sum. of  $1,288  36,  leaving  the  balance  now  in  the 
surplus  fund,  $8,357  16. 

I  do  not  know  why  Congress  allowed  interest  to  July  1, 1860,  on  Mrs.  Bingham's  bonds. 
On  the  others  interest  was  allowed  to  January  1,  1854,  as  the  appropriation,  so  I  under- 
stand, would  suffice  for  no  more,  having  been  based  upon  the  showing  made  by  the  State 


of  the  expense  incurred  by  it  up  to  that  date 
I  fail  to  perceive  that  the  State  ha 


perceive  that  the  State  had  any  right  in  the  unexpended  balance. 
Very  respectfully, 
^^       ^  ,  A.  M.  GANGEWER,  Acting  Auditor. 

Hon.  Robert  T.  Lincoln,  Secretary  of  War. 


346 

The  committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  report  of  the  Third  Auditor  is 
conclusive  as  against  the  bill.  The  argument  of  counsel  for  California  does 
not  overturn,  in  the  opinion  of  the  committee,  the  case  upon  the  facts  as 
made  out  by  the  Third  Auditor.     It  is  insisted  that — 

The  report  of  the  Third  Auditor  misapprehends  the  intention  and  scope  of  said  bill  and 
fails  to  include  and  give  (to  the  committee)  the  full  information  and  facts  and  history  of 
said  matter,  due  evidently  from  the  fact  that  the  same  are  not  matters  of  record  in  the 
Third  Auditor's  office. 

This  argument,  it  is  submitted,  would  address  itself  rather  to  the  War 
Department,  or  to  that  branch  of  it  where  "  the  matters  of  record  "  not  in 
the  Third  Auditor's  office  may  be  found,  or  to  that  office,  wherever  it  be^ 
which  contains  this  testimony.  The  committee  called  upon  the  Secretary 
of  War  (this  being  a  war  claim)  and  was  furnished  with  the  report  of  the 
Third  Auditor,  with  the  remark,  "  which  it  is  hoped  will  afford  the  infor- 
mation desired."  The  importance  of  this  report,  in  the  estimation  of  the 
Secretary,  is  shown  by  his  request  to  have  printed,  which  the  committee 
requested  to  be  done,  and  the  report  was  printed,  and  has  evidently  been 
examined  by  counsel  for  the  State.  If  there  is  anything  else  in  the  case 
the  committee  has  not  been  furnished  with  it,  the  committee  assuming 
that  all  was  furnished  which  in  the  judgment  of  the  Secretary  of  War 
was  pertinent. 

The  committee  takes  the  bill  and  evidence  furnished,  and  upon  it  reports 
the  same  and  recommends  that  bill  S.  809  do  not  pass. 


EXHIBIT  No.  15. 

BAMBER,  '^ 

April  2,  1884 


Senate  Chamber,  Washington,      ) 


Captain  John  Mullan,  IS  10  Connecticut  Avenue,  City : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  note  of  yesterday,  with  reference  to  S.  809  and  S.  1917^ 
is  before  me.  The  former  bill  went  over  to-day,  under  rule  9.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  hold  such  bills,  as  you  request  in  this  case,  under  the  circum- 
stances, and  especially  when  they  have  been  reported  upon  adversely.  It 
will  come  up  again  in  due  time,  of  course. 

Very  truly  yours, 

JOHN  F.  MILLER. 


EXHIBIT  No.  16. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  7380. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  June  24, 1884 — Referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

AMENDMENT 

Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Farley  to  the  bill  (H.  R.  7380)  making 
appropriations  for  sundry  civil  expenses  of  the  Government  for  the  fiscal 
year  ending  June  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-five,  and  for  other 
purposes,  viz.:  Insert  the  following: 

That  the  unexpended  balance  of  eight  thousand  three  hundred  and 
sixty-two  dollars  and  sixteen  cents  of  the  appropriation  made  by  Congress 
August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-four  (tenth  Statutes,  pages  five 


347 

hundred  and  eighty-two  and  five  hundred  and  eighty-three) ,  and  August 
eighteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-six  (eleventh  Statutes,  page  ninety- 
one),  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  the  State  of  California,  and 
carried  to  the  surplus  fund,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  reappropriated ;  and 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  the 
said  sum  to  the  State  of  California  upon  the  surrender  by  said  State  to  said 
Secretary  of  bonds  and  coupons  issued  by  said  State  in  part  payment  of 
said  expenses,  which  bonds  and  coupons  have  been  redeemed  and  paid  by 
said  State  in  said  sum ;  and  in  the  event  that  bonds  and  coupons  so  issued 
and  redeemed  and  paid  by  said  State  in  said  sum  have  been  canceled  and 
destroyed  by  the  authority  of  the  Legislature  thereof,  then  the  aforesaid 
sum  shall  be  paid  said  State  upon  her  furnishing  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  satisfactory  evidence  that  bonds  and  coupons  so  issued  have  been 
redeemed,  paid,  canceled,  and  destroyed  to  the  amount  of  said  unexpended 
balance,  under  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Legislature  of  said  State. 


EXHIBIT  No.  17. 

AMENDMENT  TO  H.  R.-  8255. 

Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Miller  of  California,  to  the  bill  H.  R. 
8255,  making  appropriations  to  supply  deficiences  in  the  appropriations 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1885,  and  for  prior  years  and  for  other 
purposes. 

Insert  at  end  of  line  78  on  page  48  of  H.  R.  8255,  as  follows,  to  wit: 
That  the  unexpended  balances  of  appropriations  made  by  the  Acts  of 
Congress  approved  August  5,  1854,  August  18,  1856,  and  March  2,  1861 
(U.  S.  Statutes,  volume  10,  pages  582-583,  volume  11,  page  91,  and  volume 
12,  pages  199-200),  to  refund  to  the  State  of  California,  expenses  incurred 
in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities  therein,  etc.,  which  have  heretofore  lapsed 
and  been  carried  into  the  surplus  fund  of  the  Treasury,  be  and  the  same 
are  hereby  reappropriated,  and  the  same  shall  be  paid  to  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia upon  her  surrendering  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  bonds  and 
coupons  or  other  satisfactory  vouchers  (aggregating  said  unexpended  bal- 
ances), which  have  heretofore  been  wholly  redeemed  and  fully  paid  by 
said  State  on  account  of  the  suppression  of  the  hostilities  named  in  said 
Acts,  and  not  heretofore  wholly  redeemed  or  fully  paid  by  the  United 
States. 


EXHIBIT   NO.    18. 

House  of  Representatives,  U.  S..  ) 

Washington,  D.  C,  December  23,  1882.  | 

Hon.  Third  Auditor  U.  S.  Treasury,  Washington,  D.  C.  : 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  you,  herewith,  copy  of  Senate  Report 
No.  878,  which  accompanied  H.  R.  No.  1729  of  the  third  session  Forty- 
sixth  Congress,  and  respectfully  request  that  you  may  furnish  me  with 
a  copy  of  the  descriptive  list  of  bonds  therein  referred  to  (dated  Febru- 
ary 28,  1862,)  as  having  been  filed  in  your  office  by  the  officers  of  the 
State  of  California  (Treasurer  and  Governor),  relating  to  California  war 


348 

bonds  (Indian).     Your  early  compliance  with  the  foregoing  request  will 
oblige, 

Yours  very  truly, 

C.  P.  BERRY, 
Member  of  Congress  Third  District  California. 


Treasury  Department,  Third  Auditor's  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  January  3,  1883.  j 

Hon.  C.  P.  Berry,  House  of  Representatives: 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  return  your  request  for  a  copy  of  a  descriptive 
list  of  certain  California  war  bonds,  being  the  list  referred  to  in  Senate 
Report  No.  878,  Fortv-sixth  Congress,  third  session  (to  accompany  H.  R. 
1729). 

Only  one  descriptive  list  of  bonds  issued  by  the  State  of  California  under 
authority  of  State  Act  of  May  3,  1852,  is  found  in  the  files  pertaining  to 
such  bonds.  The  aggregate  thereof,  including  interest  computed  to  Janu- 
ary 1,  1856,  was  only  $770,162  49.  I  presume  it  was  only  a  partial  list, 
including  only  such  bonds  as  had  been  issued  to  the  time  it  was  made. 
The  latest  dated  bond  upon  it  was  April  4,  1855;  and  the  highest  serial 
number  in  the  denomination  of  $250  was  No.  158. 

The  registers  of  this  office  (claim  9517)  show  that  the  bonds  presented 
by  and  returned  to  Mr.  R.  McBratney,  were  of  the  denomination  of  $250, 
and  bore  the  serial  numbers  164,  166,  167,  and  168. 

Probably  the  list  referred  to  in  the  Senate  Report  was  a  supplemental 
one,  including  the  bonds  issued  at  later  dates.  I  do  not  find  it  on  file;  nor 
do  I  find  in  the  papers  any  reference  to  it. 

Very  respectfully, 

E.  W.  KEIGHTLEY,  Auditor. 

Treasury  Department,  January  8,  1883. 

Hon.  C.  P.  Berry,  House  of  Representatives : 

Sir:.  A.s  requested  in  your  letter  of  the  fifth  instant,  I  have  the  honor 
to  transmit  herewith  a  statement  of  amounts  expended  from  the  appropria- 
tion of  $400,000,  as  made  by  the  Act  of  March  2,  1861,  to  "pay  to  Califor- 
nia, expenses  incurred  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities  in  1854-5-6-7-8-9." 
I  am,  very  respectfully, 

CHARLES  T.  FOLGER,  Secretary. 

Treasury  Department,  Register's  Office,  ) 

January  8,  1882.  j 

Statement  of  amounts  expended  out  of  the  appropriation  of  $400,000, 
as  approved  March  2,  1861,  to  "pay  to  California  for  expenses  incurred  in 
suppressing  Indian  hostilities  in  1854-5-6-7-8-9." 

1863,  expenditures - $229,987  67 

1864,  expenditures - 542  09 

Total  amount  expenditures ..- $230,529  76 

Carried  to  the  Surplus  Fund,  June  30,  1864 169,470  24 

$400,000  00 

.  W.  A.  TITCOMB,  Assistant  Register. 


349 


Treasury  Department,  January  15,  1881. 
Hon.  James  T.  Farley,   United  States  Senate: 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  inquiry  of  the  twenty-eighth  ultimo,  concerning 
certain  bonds  issued  in  1852  and  1853  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
California,  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  said  State,  I  inclose 
herewith  a  copy  of  a  report  dated  January  11,  1881,  of  the  Third  Auditor 
of  the  Treasury,  giving  the  numbers  of  the  bonds  in  question,  the  dates  of 
their  issue  and  payment,  and  to  whom  paid,  and  the  amount  of  interest 
paid  on  each  bond. 

Very  respectfully, 

H.  F.  FRENCH,  Acting  Secretary. 

[Copy.] 

Treasury  Department,  Third  Auditor's  Office, 
Washington,  D.  C,  January  11,  1881. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  return  herewith  a  letter  of  Hon.  Jas.  T.  Farley, 
U.  S.  Senator  from  California,  dated  December  28,  1880,  asking  informa- 
tion relative  to  certain  bonds  named  therein,  which  has  been  referred  to 
this  office. 

Below  you  will  find  a  statement  showing  the  numbers  of  the  bonds 
referred  to,  the  date  of  issue,  amount  of  bonds,  and  amount  of  interest  paid 
by  the  United  States.  The  rate  of  interest  allowed  was  seven  per  cent,  and 
interest  ceased  January  1,  1854,  viz.: 


Date  of  Issue. 

Amount. 

Coupons. 

1 

No.  1.    Dated 
Jan.  1, 1853. 

No.  2.    Dated 
Jan. 1, 1854. 

Date  of  Payment 
of  Bonds  and  Coupons. 

8.S 

June  24,  1852 

1500  00 
500  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 
250  00 
100  00 
500  00 
500  00 
500  00 
100  00 

$17  98 

$35  00 
23  62 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
70  00 
17  50 

4  08 
34  80 
34  80 
19  15 

7  00 

September  22,  1856 

September  22, 1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

Soptember  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20, 1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20, 1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20,  1856 

September  20, 1856 

October  27,  1856 

288 

April  28, 1853 

41 

June  22,  1852 

36  75 
36  75 
36  75 
36  75 
36  75 
36  75 
36  75 
36  75 
36  75 
36  75 

35  75 

36  75 
36  75 
36  75 
36  75 
36  75 
36  36 
36  36 
36  36 
35  97 
35  97 
35  97 
13  80 
13  80 
13  80 
13  80 
13  80 
13  80 

3  20 

49, 

June  22,1852 

48 
44 

June  22,1852 t... 

June  22,  1852 

45 

June  22, 1852 

4fi 

June  22, 1852 

47 

June  22,  1852 

48 

June  22,  1852... 

49 

June  22,  1852 

50 

June  22,  1852. 

58 

June  22,  1852 

54 

55 

June  22,1852 

June  22,  1852 . 

56 

June  22,  1852... 

57 

June  22,  1852 

58 

June  22, 1852... 

8? 

June  24.  1852... 

89 

June  24,  1852.     . 

90 

June  24,  1852 

100 
110 
111 

June  26.1852.... 

June  26,1852... 

June  26, 1852 

320 
8'?1 

October  20,1852 

October  20,  1822 

324 
325 
326 
329 
61 

October  20,  1852 

October  20,1852 

October  20,  1852. 

October  20,  1852 

October  25,  1852 

June  1,  1853 

?87 

October  27  1856 

9.9,9, 

January  3,  1853 

January  3,  1853 

June  14, 1853... 

October  13,  1856 

228 

October  13,  1856 

848 

October  13,  1856 

67 

July  23,  1852-^ 

November  25,  1856 

350 

These  bonds  were  paid  per  settlements  Nos.  2840,  2843,  3072,  3193,  and 
3345  of  1856,  under  the  Acts  for  refunding  to  the  State  of  Cahfornia 
expenses  incurred  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostiUties,  approved  August 
5,  1854,  and  August  18,  1856,  to  Charles  St.  J.  Chubb,  holder,  under  deci- 
sion of  the  honorable  Secretary  of  War,  relating  thereto,  September  4, 1856. 
The  bonds  are  on  file  in  this  office. 

Verv  respectfully, 

E.  W.  KEIGHTLEY,  Auditor. 

Hon.  John  Sherman,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  Third  Auditor's  Office, 
Washington,  D.  C,  January  24,  1883. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  return,  herewith,  the  inclosed  bond  of  the  State 
of  California,  No.  819,  for  $172  56,  which  you  left  with  me  yesterday,  and  to 
inform  you  that,  under  the  Act  of  Congress,  approved  March  2,  1861,  enti- 
tled an  "Act  for  the  payment  of  expenses  incurred  in  the  suppression  of 
Indian  hostilities  in  the  State  of  California"  the  sum  of  $400,000,  or  so 
much  thereof  as  should  be  necessary,  was  appropriated. 
'  Under  the  second  section  of  said  Act  the  Third  Auditor  was  authorized 
and  required  to  audit  the  accounts  of  said  State  who  filed  her  claims  in 
this  office  in  August,  1861,  amounting  to  $449,605  74. 

In  the  first  of  April,  1863,  the  Auditor  completed  his  examination  of 
the  claims  filed,  and  made  an  award  of  $229,987  67,  which  was  referred  to 
the  Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  the  seventh  of  June,  1863,  and  was 
returned  by  him  on  the  fifteenth  of  June,  1863,  authorizing  a  settlement  to 
be  made. 

The  Auditor,  under  date  of  June  16,  1863,  reported  a  settlement  to  the 
Second  Comptroller  for  $229,987  67,  who  returned  the  same  June  17, 1863, 
confirming  the  action  of  the  Third  Auditor — and  a  warrant.  No.  8591,  dated 
June  26,  1863,  was  issued  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ordering  draft 
for  $229,987  67  to  be  sent  to  the  Treasurer  of  the  State  of  California. 

On  the  twenty-eighth  of  September,  1863,  a  further  sum  of  $542  09  was 
allowed  and  paid  to  the  State,  and  the  balance  of  the  appropriation, 
$169,470  24,  was  carried  to  the  surplus  fund  on  the  books  of  the  Treasury 
June  30,  1864. 

The  balance  of  the  claims,  $219,075  98,  which  were  disallowed  on  the 
examination  by  the  accounting  officers,  being  excessive  charges  above  the 
rates  paid  by  the  United  States  during  the  time  and  at  the  place  where 
these  expenses  were  incurred,  is  barred  from  further  action  by  this  office, 
as  there  is  no  statute  now  in  force  which  will  authorize  the  accounting 
officers  to  further  examine  the  claims  of  the  State  of  California. 
I  am,  very  respectfully, 

E.  W.  KEIGHTLEY,  Auditor. 

Hon.  J.  H.  Slater,  United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. 


EXHIBIT  No.  19. 

Is  a  large  bound  book  now  in  the  Governor's  office. 


351 


EXHIBIT  No.  20. 

Treasury  Department,  Third  Auditor's  Office,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  August  18,  1885.  j 

Sir  :  I  return  the  California  Indian  war  bonds  recently  presented  by 
you  as  attorney  for  that  State  and  which  you  informed  me  the  State 
redeemed  and  now  holds  as  owner.  The  balance  of  the  appropriation 
made  by  the  Act  of  August  5,  1854,  and  which  by  the  Act  of  August  18, 
1856,  was  made  applicable  to  the  payment  of  the  bonds  issued  by  Califor- 
nia, was  long  ago  covered  into  the  Treasury  under  the  provisions  of  the  ^'Sur- 
plus Fund^^  law^  three  years  having  lapsed  without  any  call  therefor.  With 
the  termination  of  the  appropriation  ended  the  jurisdiction  of  the  account- 
ing officers  to  audit  any  claims  based  upon  such  bonds.  The  Act  of  June 
20,  1874,  amended  by  the  Act  of  June  14,  1878,  has  no  relation  to  appro- 
priations terminating  by  operation  of  the  Surplus  Fund  Act ;  hence  the 
authority  given  by  the  Acts  of  1874  and  1878  to  the  accounting  officers  to 
audit  claims  for  which  appropriations  have  ceased  to  be  available,  has  no 
application  to  the  case  of  these  bonds.  As  new  legislation  by  Congress 
would  be  necessary  to  enable  any  action,  I  think  it  advisable  that  thi^ 
office  should  not  undertake  the  custody  of  such  valuable  papers  until  it  shall 
have  some  jurisdiction  by  law  in  regard  to  them.  I  return  also  sundry 
other  documents  and  accounts  presented  by  you  with  the  bonds,  being  bills 
for  expenses  incurred  by  the  State,  certificates  of  unpaid  balances  on  war- 
rants drawn  by  the  State  Controller  upon  the  State  Treasury,  etc.  Even  if 
the  appropriation  made  by  Act  of  August  5,  1854,  were'still  alive,  I  do  not 
perceive  that  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  August  18,  1856,  it  would 
be  available  for  any  purpose  other  than  the  payment  of  bonds. 
Very  respectfully, 

JNO.  S.  WILLIAMS,  Auditor. 

Capt.  John  MuUan,  No.  1310  Connecticut  Ave.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  15,  1886. 
I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  full,  true,  and  correct  copy  of  the 
original  letter  which  was  sent  me  by  the  Treasury  Department,  which  has 
by  me  been  submitted  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Appropria- 
tions in  the  Senate  to  accompany  Senate  Bill  No.  993,  introduced  by' Sena- 
tor Stanford. 

EXHIBIT  No.  21. 

Treasury  Department,  Third  Auditor's  Office,  \ 
Washington,  D.  C,  November  23,  1883.  \ 

I  return  the  papers  recently  presented  by  you  as  a  supplemental  claim 
by  the  State  of  California,  under  the  Act  of  Congress,  approved  March  2, 
1861,  appropriating  $400,000  for  the  payment  of  expenses  incurred  by 
the  State  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  the  years  1854-55- 
56-58-59. 

The  balance  of  that  appropriation,  long  since  became  liable  by  law  to 
be  carried  back  into  the  Treasury  under  the  provisions  of  the  Surplus  Fund 
Act,  and  was  so  carried  back.  The  lapsing  of  the  appropriation,  termin- 
ated the  authority  of  the  Third  Auditor  to  audit  claims  against  it. 

Moreover,  the  claims  which  you  recently  presented,  do  not  appear  to 


352 

come  within  the  class  for  which  the  appropriation  was  made.  The  only 
expeditions  in  1859,  to  which  the  Act  of  March  2,  1861,  related,  were  the 
"Klamath  and  Humboldt  expeditions  of  1858  and  1859,"  and  the  "Pitt 
River  expedition  of  1859."  The  expedition  of  Captain  Jarboe's  Company 
at  Eel  River,  Mendocino  County,  in  1859,  does  not  seem  to  have  been  one 
of  the  two  described  above. 

The  Act  authorized  only  the  payment  of  the  expenses  of  the  States^ 
incurred  in  suppressing  certain  Indian  hostilities;  it  made  no  provision  for 
the  expense  of  the  Commission  which  was  appointed  by  the  State  to  come 
to  this  city  to  urge  upon  Congress  the  propriety  of  providing  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  war  debt  of  the  State. 

I  have  no  authority  to  consider  the  claims  presented  by  you,  and  there- 
fore return  the  papers. 

Very  respectfully, 

JOHN  S.  WILLIAMS,  Auditor. 

Captain  John  Mullan,  1310  Connecticut  Avenue,  Washington,  D.  C. 


EXHIBIT  No.  22. 

INDIAN  WAR  BONDS— CONTROLLER'S  REPORT. 

Controller's  Office,  ) 
Sacramento,  May  27,  1878.      j 

To  his  Excellency  William  Irwin,  Governor  of  California: 

Sir:  In  conformity  with  your  request,  made  under  the  authority  of  As- 
sembly Joint  Resolution  No.  73,  adopted  March  30,  1878,  which  reads  as 
follows: 

Resolved  by  the  Assembly  of  the  State  of  California,  the  Senate  concurring,  First,  that  our 
Senators  be'  instructed,  and  our  Representatives  requested,  to  urge  upon  Congress  the 
immediate  payment  of  all  bonds,  coupons,  and  certificates  of  coupons  issued  by  the  State 
of  California,  for  expenses  incurred  in  the  Indian  wars,  which  have  not  been  paid  by  the 
General  Government;  Second,  that  his  Excellency,  the  Governor,  be  requested  to  cause  a 
statement  of  all  such  bonds,  certificates,  and  coupons,  and  the  circumstances  connected 
therewith,  to  be  prepared  by  the  Controller,  and,  upon  such  statement  being  prepared,  to 
cause  an  application  to  be  made  to  Congress,  in  the  name  of  the  State  of  California,  for 
the  payment  of  said  bonds,  coupons,  and  certificates ;  Third,  and  that  he  forward  a  copy 
of  these  resolutions  to  each  of  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress. 

— I  have  the  honor  to  make  the  following  statement: 

I  find,  upon  examination  of  War  Bond  Register  in  State  Treasurer's 
office,  and  other  records  in  Controller's  office,  that,  under  the  Act  of  the 
Legislature  of  California,  approved  February  15, 1851  (Statutes  1851,  page 
520),  Indian  war  bonds  were  issued  by  the  State  of  California  to  the  amount 
of  $200,000,  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  twelve  per  cent  per  annum,  and 
payable  in  ten  years;  that,  under  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  May  3, 
1852  (Statutes  of  1852,  page  59),  Indian  war  bonds  were  issued  by  the  State 
of  California  to  the  amount  of  $638,100,  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of 
seven  per  cent  per  annum,  and  payable  in  ten  years. 

Of  the  principal  of  the  above  named  bonds  of  1851,  amounting  to  $200,000, 
I  find,  according  to  printed  report  of  William  Theodore  Van  Doren,  Clerk 
Third  Auditor's  office,  Washington,  made  January  10,  1872  (see  Appendix 
to  Journal  of  California  Senate  and  Assembly,  for  the  nineteenth  session, 
pages  28  and  29),  that  the  United  States  Government  has  paid  $197,000; 


353 

that  of  the  principal  of  the  above  named  bonds  of  1852,  amounting  to 
$638,100  (according  to  said  report  of  Wilham  Theodore  Van  Doren,  above 
referred  to),  the  United  States  Government  has  paid  $598,450;  that  of  the 
principal  of  the  last  named  bonds  the  State  of  California  (according  to 
Controller's  books),  has  paid  $22,850,  leaving  outstanding  of  the  principal 
of  .the  bonds  of  1851,  $3,000;  of  the  principal  of  the  bonds  of  1852,  $16,- 
800;  making  a  total  amount  of  said  bonds  outstanding  of  $19,800,  together 
with  interest  on  the  same,  which  said  principal  and  interest,  together  with 
the  number  and  denomination  of  each  of  said  outstanding  bonds,  is  given 
in  the  following  table,  to  wit: 


OUTSTANDING  SEVEN  PER  CENT  WAR  BONDS,  1852. 


Date  of  Bond. 


Interest  to 
May  2,  1862. 


Total. 


October  11,  1852... 
October  11,  1852  ... 
October  12,  1852  ... 
October  12,  1852... 
October  12,  1852  ... 
October  18,  1852... 
October  19, 1852... 
October  23,  1852... 
October  23,  1852  ... 
October  23,  1852... 
October  25,  1852... 
October  25,  1852... 
October  25,  1852... 
October  25,  1852... 
October  25,  1852... 
October  25,  1852... 
October  27,  1852... 
October27, 1852.-- 
October  28,  1852... 
November  1, 1852. 
November  1,  1852. 
November  3,1852. 
November  13, 1852. 
November  13,1852. 
November  13, 1852. 
November  16, 1852. 
November  18, 1852. 
November  18, 1852. 
November  22, 1852. 
November  22, 1852. 
November  25, 1852. 
November  25, 1852. 

April27,  1853 

August  13,  1853  ... 
August  13,  1853  ... 
August  13,  1853  ... 
August  13,  1853  ... 
January  19,1854... 
.Tanuarv  19,1854... 
March29,  1854  ..-. 

March  31,  1854 

March  31,  1854 

March  31,  1854.... 

April  12,  1854. 

April  12,  1854 

April  17,  1854 

April  17,  1844 

April  25,  1854 

April  25,  1854 

April  25,  1854 

April  25,  1854 

May  13,1854 

May  13,1854 


$100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 


$66  91 

m  91 

66  89 
66  89 
66  89 
66  77 
66  75 
66  67 
66  67 
66  67 
66  63 
66  63 
66  63 
66  63 
66  63 
66  63 
66  59 
66  59 
66  57 
66  51 
66  51 
66  47 
66  28 
66  28 
66  28 
66  22 
66  18 
66  18 
66  10 
66  10 
66  05 
66  05 
63  10 
63  04 
63  04 
63  04 
63  04 
58  20 
58  20 
56  64 
56  60 
56  60 
56  60 
56  39 
56  39 
56  29 
56  29 
56  14 
56  14 
56  14 
56  14 
55  85 
55  85 


$166  91 
166  91 
166  89 
166  89 
166  89 
166  77 
166  75 
166  67 
166  67 
166  67 
166  63 
166  63 
166  63 
166  63 
166  63 
166  63 
166  59 
166  59 
166  57 
166  51 
166  51 
166  47 
166  28 
166  28 
166  28 
166  22 
166  18 
166  18 
166  10 
166  10 
166  05 
166  05 
163  10 
163  04 
163  04 
163  04 
163  04 
158  20 
158  20 
156  64 
156  60 
15f)  60 
156  60 
156  39 
156  39 
156  29 
156  29 
156  14 
156  14 
156  14 
156  14 
155  85 
155  85 


23 


354 


Outstanding  Seven  Per  Cent  War  Bonds,  1852— Continued. 


Date  of  Bond. 


Amount. 


Interest  to 
May  2,  1862. 


May  13,1854 

May  13,1854 

May  26,1854 

May  26, 1854 

June  6,  1854 

July  10,  1854 

July  21,  1854 

August  7,1854..., 
August  11, 1854..-. 
August  19, 1854.... 
September  2,  1854 
October  23, 1854... 
October  24,  1854... 
November  24,  1854 
November  24,  1854 
November  24,  1854 
November  24,  1854 
November  24,  1854 

April  4,  1855 

Julv28,  1855 

August  1,  1855  .... 
August  13,  1855  ... 
August  13, 1855  ... 
August  13,  1855  ... 
August  13,  1855  ... 

Totals 


$100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 


$55  85 
55  85 
55  53 
55  53 
55  53 
54  67 
54  47 
54  15 
54  07 
53  92 
53  67 
52  68 
52  66 
52  08 
52  08 
52  08 
52  08 
52  08 
49  54 
47  33 
47  27 
47  04 
47  04 
47  04 
47  04 


$7,800  00   $4,641  56 


$155  85 
155  85 
155  53 
155  53 
155  53 
154  67 
154  47 
154  15 
154  07 
153  92 
153  67 
152  68 
152  66 
152  08 
152  08 
152  08 
152  08 
152  08 
149  54 
147  33 
147  27 
147  04 
147  04 
147  04 
147  04 

$12,441  56 


OUTSTANDING  SEVEN  PER  CENT  WAR  BONDS,  1852. 


Date  of  Bond. 


Interest  to 
May  2,  1862. 


Total. 


November  25,  1852 
February  3,  1854  . . 

July  10,  1854 

July  21,  1854 

July  21,  1854 

July  21,  1854 

July  21,  1854 

July  21,  1854 

August  24,  1854  ... 
August  26,  1854  ... 
August  26,  1854  ... 
August  26,  1854  ... 
September  14,  1854 
September  14, 1854 
October  18, 1854... 
October  24,  1854... 
October  24,  1854... 
October  24, 1854... 
October  24, 1854... 
October  24,  1854.. 
August  1,  1855  .... 

August  1,  1855 

August  1,  1855  .... 
August  15,  1855  ... 

May  18,  1856 

May  18,  1856 

May  18,  1856 

May  18,  1856 

Totals 


$250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 


$165  14 
144  33 
136  70 
136  15 
136  15 
136  15 
136  15 
136  15 
134  55 
134  44 
134  45 
134  45 
133  58 
133  58 
131  93 
131  64 
131  64 
131  64 
131  64 
131  64 
118  17 
118  17 
118  17 
117  50 
104  23 
104  23 
104  23 
104  23 


$7,000  00 


$3,611  04 


$415  15 
394  33 
386  70 
386  15 
386  15 
386  15 
386  15 
386  15 
384  55 
384  45 
384  45 
384  45 
383  58 
383  58 
381  93 
381  64 
381  64 
381  64 
381  64 
381  64 
368  17 
368  17 
368  17 
367  50 
354  23 
354  23 
354  23 
354  23 


$10,611  04 


355 


OUTSTANDING  SEVEN  PER  CENT  WAR  BONDS,  1852. 


No. 


Date  of  Bond. 


Amount. 


Interest  to 
May  '2,  1862. 


Total. 


186 
307 
416 
420 


November  29,  1852 

Mavl4,  1853 

May  13,  1854 

July  10,  1854 

Totals 


1500  00 
500  00 
500  00 
500  00 


$329  87 
313  83 
278  92 
273  38 


$829  87 
813  83 
778  92 
773  38 


000  00        $1,196  00         $3,196  00 


Interest  calculated  from  date  of  bond  to  May  2, 1862. 

OUTSTANDING  TWELVE  PER  CENT  WAR  BONDS,  1851. 
{Act  of  February  15, 1851.) 


No. 

Date  of  Bond. 

Amount. 

Interest  to 
Feb.  15,  1861. 

Total. 

107 

April  9,  1851 

$1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 

$1,182  00 
1,182  00 
1,167  00 

$2,182  00 

108 

April  9,  1851    

2,182  00 

142 

May  24,  1851 

Totals 

2,167  00 

$3,000  00 

$3,531  00 

$6,531  00 

Interest  calculated  from  date  of  bond  to  February  15,  1861. 


Interest  and  principal  on  bonds  of  1852 — $100  each _.. $12,441  56 

Interest  and  principal  on  bonds  of  1852— $250  each 10,611  04 

Interest  and  principal  on  bonds  of  1852— $500  each 3,198  00 

Interest  and  principal  on  bonds  of  1851— $1,000  each 6,531  00 

Total - $32,779  60 

On  August  5,  1854  (United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  Volume  X,  page 
583) ,  Congress  passed  a  bill  appropriating  money  to  defray  expenses  incurred 
by  the  State  of  California  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities.  Section  3  of 
said  bill  reads  as  follows: 

Section  3.  And  he  it  further  enacted,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be  and  he  is  hereby 
authorized  and  directed  to  examine  into  and  ascertain  the  amount  of  expenses  incurred 
by  the  State  of  California  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  within  the  said  State 
prior  to  the  first  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1854,  and  that  the  amount  of  such  expenses,  when 
so  ascertained,  be  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  said  State;  provided,  that  the  sum  so  paid  shall 
not  exceed  in  amount  the  sum  of  $924,259  65,  which  amount  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of 
any  moneys  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

Could  the  above  appropriation  of  $924,259  65  have  been  made  immedi- 
ately available,  it  would  have  paid  up  in  full,  principal  and  interest,  the 
said  bonds  under  Acts  of  1851  and  1852,  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1854; 
but  owing  to  the  ruling  of  the  honorable  Secretary  of  War,  to  the  effect 
that  the  vouchers  upon  which  the  said  bonds  were  issued  would  have  to  be 
presented  for  examination  to  the  War  Department  at  Washington,  delay 
was  caused,  the  result  of  which  was  that  before  the  bondholders  received 
their  money  some  two  years  and  eight  months  elapsed,  and  the  interest 
coupons  from  January  1,  1854  (the  date  to  which  interest  was  paid  on 
bonds  redeemed  by  the  United  States  Government,  bearing  date  prior  to 
January  1,  1854),  to  September  1,  1856,  and  amounting  to  $173,322  66, 
were  cut  from  the  said  redeemed  bonds  and  returned  to  the  respective 
holders  of  said  bonds  so  presented  for  redemption;  which  will  more  fully 


356 

and  at  large  appear  by  reference  to  reports  made  to  the  Governor  of  Cali- 
fornia by  Samuel  B.  Smith  and  J.  W.  Denver,  Commissioners  California 
War  Debt,  which  reports  bear  date,  respectively,  January  5,  1857,  and 
January  30,  1860.  (See  Appendix  to  Journals  of  Senate  and  Assembly, 
19th  Session,  pages  10,  11,  12,  13.) 

Included  in  the  $638,100  of  the  seven  per  cent  bonds,  first  herein 
described,  are  bonds  bearing  date  after  said  first  day  of  January,  1854, 
which  were  issued  under  the  said  Act  of  1852,  and  Acts  amendatory 
thereof — a  large  number  of  which,  both  principal  and  interest,  have  been 
paid  in  full  by  the  United  States  Government — said  government  thus 
acknowledging,  to  the  fullest  extent,  the  validity  of  the  issue  of  bonds  of 
later  date  than  January  1,  1854,  and  the  obligation  of  the  General  Govern- 
ment to  pay  the  same ;  all  of  which  will  more  fully  appear  by  reference  to 
the  records  of  the  United  States  War  Department. 

The  Commissioners  of  California  W^ar  Debt  give  the  amount  of  the 
detached  interest  coupons,  above  alluded  to,  as  $172,828  54.  I  make  it 
$173,322  66,  as  follows: 

Interest  on  $197,000,  bonds  of  1851,  for  thirty-two  months,  at  12  per  cent  per 
annum $63,040  00 

Interest  on  $590,800,  bonds  of  1852,  for  thirty-two  months,  at  7  per  cent  per 
annum.. 110,282  66 

Total $173,322  66 

The  Joint  Committee  of  Senate  and  Assembly,  nineteenth  session,  in  a 
report  made  February  21,  1872,  make  the  principal  of  bonds  outstanding 
as  follows: 

Outstanding  principal  of  bonds  under  Act  of  1851 $3,000  00 

Outstanding  principal  of  bonds  under  Act  of  1852 14,700  00 

Total ....      $17,700  00 

Which  is  not  the  true  amount.  The  committee  fell  into  an  error  by  assum- 
ing the  whole  issue  under  Act  of  1852,  to  be  $636,350,  when  it  should  have 
been  $638,100 — thus  ignoring  an  issue  of  $1,750  made  in  1855  and  1857, 
under  said  Act  of  May  2,  1852;  and  then  they  say  the  State  paid  of  said 
bonds,  principal,  $23,200,  when,  in  fact,  the  State  only  paid  as  principal  on 
said  bonds  the  sum  of  $22,850;  the  balance  paid  by  the  State  as  principal 
was  $350  (making  $23,200  paid  as  principal  on  said  bonds  by  the  State,  as 
appears  bv  record  in  Controller's  office),  which  was  paid  to  redeem  Bond 
No.  39,  for  $250,  and  Bond  No.  343,  for  $100,  both  of  which  had  been  pre- 
viously paid  by  the  General  Government,  which  latter  amount  of  $350,  of 
course,  did  not  diminish  the  amount  of  bonds  outstanding.  And  as  we 
have  seen  that  bonds  were  issued  to  the  amount  of  $1,750  in  excess  of 
the  amount  given  by  said  joint  committee,  and  $350  less  was  used  by  the 
State  to  pay  principal  of  said  bonds  than  was  stated  by  said  joint  com- 
mittee, consequently  there  were  less  bonds  redeemed  by  the  State,  by  the 
amount  of  $350,  than  stated  by  said  joint  committee,  and  more  issued  by 
the  State,  by  $1,750  (than  stated  by  said  committee) ;  and,  therefore,  there 
are  bonds  outstanding,  issued  under  the  Act  of  May  2,  1852,  amounting  to 
$2,100  more  than  said  joint  committee  report;  or,  in  other  words,  there  are 
of  said  bonds  of  1852,  outstanding  (principal),  $16,800,  instead  of  $14,700, 
making,  with  the  bonds  of  1851,  $19,800  now  outstanding,  which  said 
bonds,  by  numbers,  date,  and  denomination,  are  given  in  another  part  of 
this  communication. 


357 

To  sum  up,  the  account  in  tabular  form  is  as  follows: 

Bonds  of  1851  outstanding  (principal) |3,000  00 

Interest  on  same  from  date  to  maturity 3.531  00 

Bonds  under  Act  of  1852  outstanding  (principal) 16,800  00 

Interest  on  the  same  from  date  of  bond  to  May  2,  1862,  time  of  maturity 9,448  60 

Coupons  outstanding,  cut  from  bonds  of  1851,  redeemed  by  United  States 
Government,  said  coupons  being  for  interest  on  said  bonds  from  January  1, 

1854,  to  September  1, 1856 63,040  00 

Coupons  outstanding,  cut  from  bonds  of  1852,  redeemed  by  United  States  Gov- 
ernment, said  coupons  being  for  interest  on  said  bonds  from  January  1, 1854, 
to  September  1,  1856 -.. 110,282  26 

Total  amount  of  bonds,  principal  and  interest,  outstanding. $206,102  26 

To  which  amount  is  to  be  added  the  amount  of  principal  and  interest  of 
said   bonds  under  Act  of  May,  1852,  paid  by  the  State  of  California — 
$35,523  56— making  the  sum  of  $241,625  82  for  which  the  General  Gov- 
ernment is  justly  liable  to  the  State. 
All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

W.  B.  C.  BROWN,  Controller. 


EXHIBIT  No.  225^. 

Office  of  California  State  Agent,  1310  Connecticut  Avenue, 

Washington,  January  20,  1885. 

Hon.  George  Stoneman,  Governor  of  California: 

Dear  Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  you  herewith  a  printed  "state- 
ment in  relation  to  the  California  Indian  war  debt,  and  of  bonds  in  payment 
therefor,  issued  by  said  State  under  the  Acts  of  her  Legislature,  approved 
February  15,  1851,  and  May  3,  1852,"  which  I  have  carefully  compiled  and 
which  is  intended  to  fully  show  the  exact  status  of  this  subject-matter  up 
to  January  1,  1885. 

In  accordance  with  the  summary  contained  on  page  10  thereof,  Hon. 
Barclay  Henley,  at  my  request,  on  the  nineteenth  day  of  January,  1885, 
•introduced  in  the  House  H.  R.  No.  7975,  which  has  been  referred  to  the 
House  Committee  on  War  Claims,  copy  of  which  is  as  follows,  to  wit: 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  session.    H.  R.  7975. 

'  A   BILL 

To  indemnify  the  State  of  California  on  account  of  indebtedness  incurred  by 
her  in  the  Indian  wars  therein,  and  which  has  heretofore  been  paid  by  said 
State. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, or  to  her  dul}^  authorized  agent,  the  sum  of  money  heretofore,  paid 
by  the  State  of  California  in  the  redemption  of  the  Indian  war  bonds  issued 
by  said  State  under  the  Acts  of  her  Legislature,  approved  February  15, 
1851,  and  May  3,  1852,  and  of  the  certificates  of  indebtedness  issued  in 
connection  therewith,  on  account  of  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in 
said  State,  prior  to  January  1, 1854;  and  which  bonds  and  certificates  have 


358 

heretofore  been  redeemed  and  paid  by  said  State,  together  with  interest 
thereon  at  six  per  cent  per  annum  from  the  dates  of  such  payments  by  said 
State  to  the  dates  of  the  payment  thereof  by  the  United  States;  provided, 
that  the  sum  to  be  so  paid  by  the  United  States  to  said  State  for  the  mat- 
ters herein  contained  sliall  not  exceed  one  hundred  and  ten  thousand  nine 
hundred  and  forty-seven  dollars  and  thirty-eight  cents,  which  amount  is 
hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appro- 
priated, and  to  be  paid  to  said  State  upon  the  surrender  by  her,  or  by  her 
duly  authorized  agent,  of  said  bonds  and  of  said  certificates  of  indebtedness 
to  the  Treasury  Department  of  the  United  States. 

Hon.  Barclay  Henley  and  Hon.  P.  B.  Tully  have  secured  for  me  a  satis- 
factory interview  on  this  matter  with  Hon.  G.  W.  Geddes,  Chairman  of  the 
House  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  Mr.  Geddes  promised  to  see  his  com- 
mittee in  order  that  I  should  be  heard  before  them  on  this  subject  at  a  full 
meeting  thereof,  to  be  called  at  an  early  date. 

In  this  connection  permit  me  to  suggest  that  you  should  at  once  lay 
before  the  Legislature  this  matter  in  so  far  as  it  relates  to  that  portion  of 
said  debt  not  heretofore  paid,  either  by  the  State  of  California  or  by  the 
United  States,  though  assured  and  promised  to  be  paid  by  said  State,  with 
a  recommendation  that  due  provision  of  law  should  be  made  to  pay  the 
same. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  United  States  will  in  due  time  refund  and 
repay  to  the  State  of  California  so  much  of  said  debt  as  the  State  herself 
has  heretofore  assumed  and  by  her  heretofore  paid,  but  I  am  equally  of  the 
opinion  that  the  United  States  will  not  assume  nor  pay  any  portion  of  said 
debt  which  the  State  of  California  herself  has  assumed  and  not  heretofore 
by  her  paid. 

I  am  also  of  the  opinion  if  the  State  of  California  would  pay  the  remain- 
ing portion  of  said  debt  which  she  has  assumed  and  promised  to  pay,  to 
wit :  the  sum  of  $203,856  47,  either  in  cash  or  in  bonds,  that  the  United 
States  would  thereafter  refund  the  same  to  her. 

I,  therefore,  take  the  liberty  to  suggest  to  you  that  you  would  lay  this 
entire  subject-matter  before  the  Legislature  at  its  present  session,  and  in  a 
special  message,  for  such  action  as  it  may  feel  disposed  to  take  in  these 
premises. 

It  is  due  to  the  history  of  this  subject-matter  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
fact  that  nearly  every  Governor  of  California  since  1854  has  brought  this 
subject  to  the  attention  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  and  with  the  recom- 
mendation that  the  State  of  Calfornia  should  pay  this  debt  by  her  hereto- 
fore assumed  and  by  her  promised  to  be  paid,  and  thereafter  let  the  State 
present  her  claim  to  the  proper  authorities  of  the  United  States  for  reim- 
bursement and  payment. 

I  therefore  suggest  a  bill  to  cover  the  foregoing  proposition,  and  of  the 
form  as  follows,  to  wit : 

A  BILL 

To  redeem  and  pay  so  much  of  the  California  Indian  war  debt  arising  under 
the  Acts  of  her  Legislature,  approved  February  IS,  1851,  and  May  3, 1852, 
as  has  not  been  heretofore  paid  by  either  the  State  of  California  or  by  the 
United  States. 

The  People  of  the  State  of  California,  represented  in  Senate  and  Assembly,  do 

enact  as  follows: 

Section  1.  The  following  sums  are  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any 
money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated: 


359 

For  the  redemption  and  payment  of  California  Indian  war  bonds,  num- 
bered 107,  108,  and  142,  for  $1,000  each,  issued  under  the  Act  of  February 
15,  1851,  with  interest  on  each  thereof  from  the  date  of  issuance  of  each 
up  to  February  15,  1861,  the  date  of  maturity  thereof,  $6,531. 

For  the  redemption  and  payment  of  Cahfornia  Indian  War  Bonds,  num- 
bered 132,  133,  134,  135,  136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 
147,  148,  149,  150,  151,  152,  153,  154,  155,  156,  157,  158,  159, 160,  161, 162, 
163,  219,  268,  269,  270,  271,  305,  306,  329,  331,  332,  333,  340,  341,  348,  349, 
353,  354,  355,  356,  371,  372,  373,  374,  380,  381,  383,  384,  386,  390,  391,  394, 
398,  401,  402,403,404,  405,  406,  407,  409,  413,416,  417,  418,  419,  and  420, 
for  $100  each,  issued  under  the  Act  of  May  3,  1852,  with  interest  on  each 
thereof  from  the  date  of  issuance  of  each  up  to  May  3,  1862,  the  date  of 
maturity  thereof,  $12,442  56. 

For  the  redemption  and  payment  of  Cahfornia  Indian  war  bonds,  num- 
bered 69,  113,  128,  129,  130,  134,  135,  136,  139,  141,  142, 143, 145, 146,  151, 
152,  153,  154,  155,  156,  160,  161,  162,  and  163,  for  $250  each,  issued  under 
the  Act  of  May  3,  1852,  with  interest  on  each  thereof  from  the  date  of 
issuance  of  each  up  to  May  3, 1862,  the  date  of  maturity  thereof,  $9,194  12. 

For  the  redemption  and  payment  of  Cahfornia  Indian  war  bonds,  num- 
bered 307,  416,  and  420,  for  $500  each,  issued  under  the  Act  of  May  3, 1852, 
with  interest  on  each  thereof  from  the  date  of  issuance  of  each  up  to  May 
3,  1862,  the  date  of  maturity  thereof,  $2,366  13. 

For  the  redemption  and  payment  of  interest  on  Cahfornia  Indian  war 
bonds,  issued  under  the  Act  of  February  15,  1851  (represented  by  coupons 
detached  from  said  bonds,  and  which  coupons  were  returned  to  the  hold- 
ers of  said  bonds  and  not  paid),  from  January  1,  1854,  to  September  1, 
1856,  $63,040. 

For  the  redemption  and  payment  of  interest  on  bonds  issued  under  the 
Act  of  May  3,  1852  (represented  by  coupons  detached  from  said  bonds, 
and  which  coupons  were  returned  to  the  holders  of  said  bonds  and  not 
paid),  from  January  1,  1854,  to  September  1,  1856,  $110,282. 

Sec.  2.  The  State  Treasurer  is  hereby  authorized  to  pay  the  aforesaid 
sums  on  account  of  the  redemption  of  said  bonds  and  said  coupons,  upon 
warrants  to  be  drawn  therefor  by  the  State  Controller,  to  whom  the  said 
bonds  and  the  said  coupons  shall  be  surrendered  by  the  holders  thereof; 
and  upon  such  surrender  the  Controller  shall  cancel  the  same,  and  when 
so  canceled  he  shall  deliver  each  bond  and  each  coupon  to  the  Governor 
of  this  State,  who  shall  immediately  thereafter  cause  the  same,  together 
with  all  papers  relating  thereto,  to  be  forwarded  to  Captain  John  Mullan, 
State  Agent  for  California  at  Washington  City,  D.  C,  who  is  hereby  author- 
ized to  present  the  same  to  the  proper  authorities  of  the  United  States,  and 
secure  their  redemption  and  payment. 

Sec.  3.  The  Governor,  State  Controller,  and  State  Treasurer  shall  each 
keep  in  their  offices  a  special  book,  in  which  shall  be  recorded  all  trans- 
actions by  them  respectively  had  under  this  Act,  and  they  shall  each 
report  fully  thereon  to  the  Legislature  at  its  next  session,  and  at  every 
subsequent  session,  until  all  the  matters  herein  contained  are  finally 
adjusted  between  the  State  of  California  and  the  United  States. 

Sec.  4.     This  Act  shall  take  effect  immediately. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  scvant, 

JOHN  MULLAN, 

State  Agent  for  California. 


360 


STATEMENT  IN  RELATION  TO  THE  CALIFORNIA  INDIAN  WAR 
DEBT,  AND  OF  BONDS  IN  PAYMENT  THEREOF,  ISSUED  BY 
SAID  STATE  UNDER  THE  ACT  OF  HER  LEGISLATURE,  AP- 
PROVED FEBRUARY  15,  1851,  AND  MAY  3,  1852. 

Office  of  the  State  Agent  of  the  State  of  California,  ") 
No.  1310  Connecticut  Avenue, 
Washington  City,  D.  C,  December  15,  1884.  ) 

STATEMENT 

In  relation  to  the  California  Indian  war  debt  and  of  bonds  issued  by  the 
authority  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California  in  liquidation  of  and 
payment  for  the  expenses  incurred  by  said  State  for  the  common  defense, 
to  wit:  suppressing  Indian  hostilities  that  arose  prior  to  January  1,  1854, 
in  said  State,  etc. 

I. 

On  February  15,  1851,  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California  (Cali- 
fornia Laws  1851,  page  520),  enacted  a  law  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Section  1.  By  virtue  of  the  power  given  to  the  Legislature  by  the  Constitution  of  this 
State,  Article  VIII,  "  In  case  of  war  to  repel  invasion  or  suppress  insurrection,"  a  loan  not 
exceeding  five  hundred  thousand  dollars  is  hereby  authorized  to  be  negotiated  upon  the 
faith  and  credit  of  the  State,  payable  in  ten  years,  and  at  anj^  period  after  five  years  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  State;  said  loan  to  bear  a  rate  of  interest  not  exceeding  twelve  per  cent  per 
annum,  payable  annually  or  semi-annually  at  such  place  as  the  contracting  parties  may 
agree ;  provided,  however,  that  the  interest  of  the  first  year  may  be  paid  in  advance  out  of 
the  loan  thus  made. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  Treasurer  be  and  lie  is  hereby  authorized  and  required  to  cause  suita- 
ble bonds  to  be  provided  for  said  loan,  in  sums  not  less  than  one  thousand  dollars. 

Sec.  3.  All  such  bonds  shall  be  signed  by  the  Treasurer  in  his  official  character,  made 
payable  to  and  indorsed  by  the  Governor  in  his  official  character,  who  shall  affix  the  seal 
of  the  State  thereto,  and  countersigned  by  the  Controller,  which  l3onds  executed  as  afore- 
said shall  be  transferable  on  delivery,  and  bind  the  State  for  the  faithful  payment  thereof. 

Sec.  4.  After  the  bonds  aforesaid  shall  have  been  countersigned  by  the  Controller  it 
shall  be  his  duty  to  make  a  register  of  the  same  in  a  book  to  be  kept  for  that  purpose,  with 
the  number  and  amount  thereof,  and  deliver  them  to  the  Treasurer,  charging  him  with  the 
same.    The  Treasurer  shall  also  keep  a  register  of  such  bonds  as  may  be  negotiated. 

Sec.  5.  Coupons  for  the  interest  shall  be  attached  to  each  bond,  so  that  they  may  be 
removed  without  injury  or  mutilation  to  the  bond. 

Sec.  6.  The  Treasurer  shall  be,  and  he  is  hereby  authorized,  with  the  approval  of  the 
Governor  of  the  State,  to  negotiate  such  loan  as  speedily  as  possible,  at  such  time  and 
place,  and  in  such  amounts  as  they  may  determine  the  exigencies  of  the  State  require; 
but  no  loan  shall  be  negotiated  below  the  par  value  thereof. 

Sec  7.  Any  claim  which  this  State  has  now,  or  may  hereafter  have,  upon  the  General 
Government  for  moneys  expended  out  of  this  loan,  for  the  purpose  aforesaid,  shall  be  and 
the  same  is  hereby  set  apart  and  pledged  for  the  payment  of  the  principal  and  interest 
arising  upon  said  bonds,  together  with  all  other  moneys  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise 
appropriated,  or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  necessary. 

Sec  8.  The  Treasurer  is  hereby  authorized  to  defray  such  expenses  as  may  be  incurred 
in  obtaining  the  above  loan;  provided,  that  it  does  not  exceed  the  sum  of  two  thousand 
dollars,  to  be  paid  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated ;  pro- 
mded,  said  loan  be  negotiated  in  this  State. 

11. 

On  May  3,  1852,  said  State  (California  Laws  1852,  p.  59),  enacted  an 
additional  law  on  the  same  subject  as  contained  in  the  foregoing,  and  which 
law  is  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Section  1.  A  sum  not  exceeding  six  hundred  thousand  dollars  is  hereby  appropriated 
and  set  apart  as  an  additional  war  fund,  payable  in  ten  years,  out  of  any  moneys  which 


361 

may  be  appropriated  by  Congress  to  defray  the  expenses  incurred  by  the  State  of  Califor- 
nia, and  interest  thereon  at  the  rate  of  seven  (7)  per  cent  per  annum,  in  the  suppression 
of  Indian  hostihties,  or  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  any  public  lands  which  may  be 
xlonated  or  set  aside  by  Congress  for  that  purpose;  and  should  no  such  appropriation  or 
donation  be  made,  or  if  an  amount  sufficient  should  not  be  appropriated  or  donated  within 
the  said  ten  years,  then  the  bonds  authorized  to  be  issued  by  this  Act  shall  be  good  and 
valid  claims  against  the  (State,  and  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  expeditions  mentioned  in  this  Act. 

Sec.  2.  Such  liabilities  as  have  been  incurred  allowed  as  provided  by  law,  or  may  be 
allowed  by  the  Board  of  Examiners  for  the  Mariposa  expedition,  also  such  accounts  as 
have  been*  or  may  be  allowed  under  legislative  authority,  for  the  second  Ei  Dorado,  Utah, 
Los  Angeles,  Clear  Lake,  Klamath  and  Trinity,  and  Monterey  expeditions  against  the 
Indians,  shall  be  funded  or  paid  in  bonds  bearing  seven  per  cent  interest  per  annum, 
from  the  date  of  issuing  the  same. 

Sec.  3.  All  accounts  heretofore  examined  and  allowed  by  the  Board  of  Examiners,  con- 
sisting of  the  Treasurer  and  Controller  of  State,  and  all  other  accounts  of  claims  for 
services  and  supplies  rendered  in  the  foregoing  campaigns  which  have  been  examined  and 
allowed  by  either  branch  of  the  present  Legislature,  and  as  shown  by  the  payrolls  and 
abstracts  accompanying  the  same,  or  which  may  not  have  been  so  examined  and  allowed, 
shall  by  said  Board  be  again  examined,  where  warrants  have  not  been  issued,  and  if 
allowed,  it  is  hereby  made  the  duty  of  the  Controller  to  issue  his  warrant  on  the  Treas- 
urer in  favor  of  the  person  holding  the  claim  so  allowed,  payable  out  of  the  war  bonds, 
and  the  Treasurer  shall,  on  presentation  of  such  warrant,  therefor  exchange  the  bonds 
provided  to  be  created  by  a  preceding  section  of  this  Act. 

Sec.  4. .  In  the  examination  herein  required  to  be  made  by  the  Controller  and  Treas- 
urer, they  are  hereby  fully  empowered,  whenever  or  wherever  any  mistake  may  be 
detected  by  them  against  the  State,  in  the  allowance  which  may  have  been  made  by  either 
branch  of  the  Legislature  to  claimants,  to  correct  the  same,  by  a  proper  reduction  thereof, 
and  in  the  allowance  to  be  made  of  claims  which  have  not  been  examined,  thoy  shall  have 
power,  and  are  hereby  required  to  pay  to  officers  and  privates,  the  same  as  is  allowed  by 
the  Act  of  March  seventeenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  tifty-one,  providing  for  the  defense 
of  the  eastern  frontier  against  the  Indians,  and  shall  limit  their  payment  for  supplies  to 
the  prices  at  which  like  articles  were  worth  at  the  date  of  such  purchase  in  the  neighbor- 
hood were  made. 

Sec.  5.  The  State  Treasurer  is  hereby  authorized  and  required  to  cause  suitable  bonds  to 
be  provided  for  said  payments,  in  sums  of  one  hundred,  two  hundred  and  fifty,  five  hun- 
dred, and  one  thousand  dollars  each. 

Sec.  6,  All  such  bonds  shall  be  signed  by  the  Treasurer  in  his  official  character,  made 
payable  to  and  indorsed  by  the  Governor  in  his  official  character,  who  shall  affix  the  seal 
of  the  State  thereto,  and  countersigned  by  the  Controller,  which  bonds,  executed  as 
aforesaid,  shall  be  transferable  by  assignment  on  the  bonds,  by  the  owner  thereof  or  by 
his  attorney  in  fact,  and  bind  the  State  for  the  faithful  payment  thereof. 

Sec  7.  After  the  bonds  shall  have  been  countersigned  bj^  the  Controller,  it  shall  be  his 
duty  to  make  a  register  of  the  same  in  a  book  to  be  kept  for  that  purpose,  with  the  num- 
ber and  amount  thereof,  and  deliver  them  to  the  Treasurer,  charging  him  with  the  same. 
The  Treasurer  shall  also  keep  a  register  of  such  bonds. 

Sec  8.  Coupons  for  the  interest  shall  be  attached  to  each  bond,  so  that  they  may  be 
removed  without  injury  or  mutilation  to  the  bond. 

Sec  9.  Any  claim  which  the  State  has  now,  or  may  hereafter  have,  upon  the  General 
Government,  for  moneys  expended  for  the  purposes  aforesaid,  shall  be  and  the  same  is 
hereby  set  apart  and  pledged  for  the  payment  of  the  principal  and  interest  arising  upon 
said  bonds. 

Sec  10.  The  Treasurer  is  hereby  authorized  to  defray  such  expenses  as  may  be  incurred 
in  obtaining  the  blanks  for  said  bonds;  provided,  that  they  do  not  exceed  the  cost  of  one 
thousand  dollars,  to  be  paid  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

Sec  Jl.  The  Treasurer  shall  deliver  the  bonds  to  claimants  whenever  demanded  by 
them  in  person  or  by  legal  agent. 

Sec  12.  Whenever  the  Treasurer  shall  derive  a  sufficient  sum  from  the  tax  herein  pro- 
vided to  be  levied,  he  shall  make  certain  arrangements  for  the  payment  of  the  interest  of 
the  war  bonds,  and  shall  advertise  for  three  months  at  least,  in  some  newspaper  in 
Sacramento  City  and  San  Francisco,  notifying  holders  of  bonds  when  interest  will  be  paid 
at  the  State  Treasury. 

Sec  13.  An  Act  authorizing  the  Treasurer  of  the  State  to  negotiate  a  loan  upon  the  faith 
and  credit  of  the  State,  for  the  purpose  of  defraying  the  expenses  which  have  been  and 
may  be  incurred  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities  in  the  State,  in  the  absence  of  adequate 
provision  being  made  by  the  General  Government,  passed  February  fifteenth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  tifty-one;  also,  an  Act  passed  March  seventeenth,  eighteen  hundred  and 
fifty-one,  entitled  "An  Act  authorizihg  the  Governor  to  call  out  troops  to  defend  our 
frontier,  and  providing  for  their  pay  and  compensation,"  be  and  the  same  is  hereby 
repealed;  provided,  the  repeal  in  nowise  affect  the  War  Loan  Bonds  already  issued  under 
the  provisions  of  the  Act  so  repealed. 


362 
III. 

Under  the  aforesaid  State  statute  of  February  15,  1851,  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia issued  interest-bearing  bonds  in  the  aggregate  sum  of  $200,000,  and 
under  the  said  State  statute  of  May  3, 1852,  said  State  issued  other  interest- 
bearing  bonds  in  the  aggregate  sum  of  $638,100. 

On  or  about  January  1,  1854,  the  State  of  CaHfornia  submitted  to 
Congress  a  partial  statement  of  the  expenses  she  had  so  authorized  and 
incurred,  and  liabilities  she  had  so  assumed,  and  for  which  she  had  up  to 
January  1,  1854,  issued  interest-bearing  bonds  as  provided  for  in  said  laws, 
all  issued  under  the  two  aforesaid  Acts  of  her  Legislature,  and  which  bonds, 
with  interest  represented  by  coupons  attached  thereto,  and  calculated  only 
up  to  January  1,  1854,  aggregated  the  sum  of  $924,259  65. 

Thereafter,  to  wit,  on  August  5  1854,  (U.  S.  Stats.,  vol.  10,  pp.  582,  583), 
Congress  appropriated  said  sum  of  $924,259  65  to  defray  the  partial  expenses 
so  presented  by  the  State  of  California,  and  then  actually  paid  by  said  State 
and  as  calculated  in  the  manner  aforesaid,  for  suppressing  Indian  hostilities 
therein,  and  represented  by  bonds  bearing  date  prior  to  January  1,  1854, 
and  which  Act  of  Congress  is  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Sec.  9.  And  he  it  further  enacted,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be  and  he  is  hereby  author- 
ized and  directed  to  examine  into  and  ascertain  the  amount  of  expenses  incurred  and  now 
actually  paid,  by  the  State  of  California,  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  within  the 
said  State  prior  to  the  first  of  January,  Anno  Domini  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty -four,  and 
that  the  amount  of  such  expenses,  when  so  ascertained,  be  paid  to  the  Treasury  of  said 
State;  provided,  that  the  sum  so  paid  shall  not  exceed  in  amount  the  sum  of  nine  hundred 
and  twenty-four  thousand  two  hundred  and  fifty-nine  dollars  and  sixty -five  cents ;  which 
amount  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appro- 
priated. 

Subsequent  to  the  passage  of  said  Act  of  Congress  of  August  5,  1854, 
there  arose  some  serious  questions  in  these  premises  between  the  author- 
ities of  the  State  of  California  and  those  of  the  United  States,  and  especially 
as  to  whom  and  how  said  sum  of  $924,259  65  so  appropriated  by  Congress 
should  be  paid. 

For  the  purpose  of  adjusting  and  specifically  defining  this  matter,  on 
August  18,  1856  (U.  S.  Stats.,  vol.  11,  p.  91),  Congress  enacted  a  second  law 
in  regard  to  and  explanatory  of  its  original  intention  on  this  same  subject- 
matter,  and  in  which  last  law  the  Secretary  of  War  was  directed  to  pay  said 
sum  so  appropriated  in  the  Act  of  August  5, 1884,  to  wit,  of  $924,259  65,  to 
the  holders  of  said  bonds,  and  which  Act  of  Congress  of  August  18,  1856,  is 
as  follows,  to  wit: 

•K-  **  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

Sec.  8.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  is  hereby  authorized  and 
directed  to  pay  to  the  holders  of  the  war  bonds  of  the  State  of  California  the  amount  of 
money  ax)propriated  by  Act  of  Congress  approved  May  [August]  fifth,  eighteen  hundred 
and  fifty-four,  "in  payment  of  expenses  incurred  and  now  actually  paid  by  said  State  of 
California  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  within  the  said  State  prior  to  the  first 
day  of  January,  Anno  Domini  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-four,  under  the  following  restric- 
tions and  regulations:  Before  any  bonds  shall  be  redeenied  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  they 
shall  be  presented  to  the  Board  of  Commissioners  appointed  by  the  Legislature  of  said 
State  by  an  Act  approved  April  nineteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-six,  and  the  amount 
due  and  payable  upon  each  bond  be  indorsed  thereon  by  said  Commission.  Upon  pre- 
sentation to  the  Secretary  of  War  of  any  bond  or  bonds  thus  indorsed,  it  shall  be  his  duty 
to  draw  his  warrant  in  favor  of  the  holder  or  holders  thereof  for  the  amount  certified  to  be 
due  upon  the  same  by  said  Commissioners,  upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who  is 
hereby  directed  to  pay  the  same;  provided,  that  said  amounts  in  the  aggregate  shall  not 
exceed  the  amount  of  money  apx)ropriated  by  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  fifth^ 
eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-four;  said  bonds,  after  redemption,  and  after  taking  off  the 
coupons  that  remain  unpaid,  shall  be  delivered  to  the  Secretary  of  War  to  be  canceled." 


363 

This  appropriation  of  $924,259  65  made  by  Congress  on  August  5,  1854, 
was  based  exclusively  upon  the  amount  of  California  Indian  war  claims 
which  the  proper  authorities  of  that  State  had  presented  January  1,  1854, 
for  the  consideration  of  and  payment  by  the  United  States,  and  which  her 
own  officials  had  examined,  audited,  and  allowed,  with  interest  calculated 
up  to  January  1,  1854,  and  for  which  amount  interest-bearing  bonds  had 
been  issued  by  said  State  prior  to  January  i,  1854-  The  aforesaid  Act  of 
August  18, 1856,  simply  defined  specifically  the  parties  to  whom  the  money  so 
appropriated  on  August  5,  1854,  should  be  then  paid.  The  only  difference 
between  the  two  aforesaid  Acts  of  August  5,  1854,  and  August  18,  1856, 
being  as  follows,  to  wit:  Under  the  Act  of  August  5,  1854,  the  sum  appro- 
priated was  by  the  executive  departments  of  the  United  States  declared  to 
be  payable  only  to  the  State  of  California,  while  under  the  Act  of  August 
18,  1856,  said  sum  was  declared  specifically  by  Congress  to  be  paid  direct 
to  the  holders  of  the  aforesaid  bonds,  and  as  issued  by  the  State  of  California, 
in  the  manner  and  at  the  dates  aforesaid. 

But  there  were  similar  and  other  expenses  which  had  been  incurred  by 
the  State  of  California  prior  to  January  1,  1854,  but  the  claims  for  which 
were  not  presented  by  the  individual  claimants  to  the  State  authorities  of 
California  until  after  January  1,  1854,  and  hence  not  examined  or  audited 
or  allowed  or  calculated  for  by  said  State  authorities  until  at  dates  subse- 
quent to  January  1, 1854,  but  the  payment  of  all  of  which  had  been  provided 
for  by  the  two  aforesaid  Acts  of  the  Legislature  of  California  of  February  15, 
1851,  and  May  3, 1852.  For  the  liquidation  of  these  last  expenses  when  so 
presented,  examined,  and  allowed,  the  proper  State  authorities  under  the  two 
aforesaid  Acts  of  the  Legislature  of  California  issued  other  interest-hearing 
bonds,  and  all  of  which  bonds  necessarily  bore  date  subsequent  to  January 
1,  1854. 

Payment  of  all  the  bonds  so  issued  by  said  State  subsequent  to  January 
1,  1854,  and  of  the  coupons  attached  thereto,  was  refused  by  the  U.  S. 
Treasury  Department  and  continued  to  be  by  it  refused  until  June  23, 
1860,  and  because  that  department,  in  conjunction  with  the  War  Department 
of  the  United  States,  on  September  1, 1856,  held  that  the  legislation  of  Con- 
gress as  contained  in  its  two  aforesaid  Acts  of  August  5,  1854,  and  August 
18,  1856,  limited  the  U.  S.  Treasury  Department  to  the  redemption  of  Cali- 
fornia Indian  war  bonds  that  had  been  issued  by  the  State  authorities  of 
said  State  prior  to  January  1,  1854,  and  also  limited  and  restricted  that 
department  when  paying  interest  earned  by  said  bonds  to  the  payment  of 
such  interest  only  as  had  been  earned  and  as  had  accrued  prior  and  up  to 
January  1,  1854,  but  not  subsequent  to  such  date.  The  U.  S.  Treasury  and 
War  Departments  held  that  said  legislation  of  Congress  of  August  5,  1854, 
and  August  18,  1856,  did  not  apply  to  any  bonds  bearing  date  subsequent 
to  January  1, 1854,  or  to  any  interest  earned  thereon  subsequent  to  January 
1, 1854,  or  to  any  bonds  issued  or  to  any  interest  whatsoever  earned  subse- 
quent to  January  1, 1854,  notwithstanding  the  fact  was  and  is  that  the  bonds 
issued  prior  to  January  1, 1854,  were  not  redeemed  by  the  United  States  until 
September  1, 1856,  and  notwithstanding  said  interest-bearing  bonds  issued 
subsequent  to  January  1,  1854,  were  all  issued  in  liquidation  and  payment 
of  expenses  that  had  been  necessarily  incurred  by  said  State  prior  to  Jan- 
uary 1, 1854,  and  all  issued  by  said  State  in  liquidation  of  expenses  similar 
in  all  respects  to  those  for  which  said  State  had  issued  bonds  prior  to 
January  1,  1854,  and  all  of  which  last  named  bonds  with  interest  up  to 
January  1,  1854,  have  been  paid  by  the  U.  S.  Treasury  Department,  except 
as  hereinafter  stated. 

The  partial  claim  presented  to  Congress  by  the  State  of  California  on  or 


364 

about  January  1,  1854,  for  the  expenses  incurred  by  said  State  for  the 
suppression  of  Indian  hostihties  therein  prior  to  January  1,  1854,  was  rep- 
resented by  bonds  and  coupons  which  had  been  issued  by  said  State  prior 
to  January  1,  1854,  in  full  adjustment  and  in  full  liquidation  of  said 
expenses,  in  so  far  as  the  same  had  been  then  presented  and  examined, 
audited  and  allowed  by  said  State  prior  to  January  1,  1854,  and  not 
otherwise. 

But  the  claim  so  then  presented  by  the  State  of  California  to  the  United 
States  was  partial  only,  and  did  not  represent  and  did  not  include,  and 
was  not  then  intended  to  represent  or  to  include  the  whole  of  the  indebted- 
ness^ that  California  had  necessarily  incurred  prior  to  January  1,  1854,  on 
account  of  the  aforesaid,  expenses  and  liabilities.  On  the  contrary,  there 
were  other  and  additional  expenses  which  had  been  necessarily  incurred 
by  the  State  of  California  prior  to  January  1,  1854,  but  the  claims  for- 
which  had  not  been  presented  by  her  citizens  to  the  proper  State  authori- 
ties of  said  State,  and  hence  by  the  latter  not  examined  or  audited,  or 
adjusted,  or  allowed  until  at  dates  subsequent  to  January  1,  1854,  and  for 
which  expenses  when  presented  and  by  her  proper  State  officials  duly 
examined,  audited,  and  allowed,  said.  State  issued  other  interest-bearing 
bonds,  bearing  date  subsequent  to  January  1,  1854,  and  as  authorized  by 
said  State  under  the  aforesaid  Act  of  her  Legislature  of  May  3,  1852. 
The  just  claims,  therefore,  in  these  premises  of  the  State  of  California, 
and  of  the  individual  holders  of  her  said  bonds  and  coupons  as  the  same 
now  exist,  may  be  itemized  as  follows,  to  wit: 

First — For  the  redemption  and  payment  to  the  legal  holders  thereof  by  the 
United  States  of  three  outstanding,  unredeemed,  and  unpaid  bonds  and 
attached  coupons,  to  wit:  Nos.  107  and  108,  both  issued  April  9,  1851, 
and  No.  142,  issued  May  24,  1851,  for  $1,000  each,  all  three  being  issued 
under  the  aforesaid  Act  of  February  15,  1851,  and  neither  of  which  bonds 
has  ever  heretofore  been  paid  either  by  the  State  of  California  or  by  the 
United  States,  as  per  tables  hereto  annexed. 

Second — For  the  redemption  and  payment  to  the  legal  holders  thereof  by 
the  United  States  of  the  outstanding,  unredeemed,  and  unpaid  bonds  and 
coupons  attached  thereto,  issued  under  the  aforesaid  Act  of  May  3,  1852, 
and  none  of  which  bonds  have  ever  heretofore  been  paid  either  by  the 
State  of  California  or  by  the  United  States,  as  per  tables  hereto  annexed. 

Third — For  the  redemption  and  payment  to  the  legal  holders  thereof  by 
the  United  States  of  the  outstanding,  unredeemed,  unpaid,  detached  coupons 
earned  between  January  1,  1854,  and  September  1,  1856,  on  which  last 
named  date  the  United  States  redeemed  and  paid  the  bonds  issued  under 
both  of  said  Acts,  from  which  all  of  said  coupons  had  been  detached,  and 
none  of  which  coupons  have  ever  heretofore  been  paid  either  by  the  State 
of  California  or  by  the  United  States,  as  per  tables  hereto  annexed. 

Fourth — The  payment  to  the  State  of  California  by  the  United  States  of 
the  bonds  and  coupons  attached  thereto,  issued  under  the  Act  of  May  3, 1852, 
which  have  heretofore  been  redeemed  and  heretofore  paid  in  cash  by  the 
State  of  California  out  of  her  own  State  Treasury  and  with  her  own  State 
funds,  but  neither  of  which  bonds,  nor  any  thereof,  nor  the  amount  repre- 
senting the  same  or  any  part  thereof,  has  ever  heretofore  been  redeemed  or 
paid  by  the  United  States,  as  per  tables  hereto  annexed. 

Fifth — The  payment  to  the  State  of  California  by  the  United  States  of  the 
Treasurer's  certificates  of  balances  due  individual  claimants,  issued  by  the 
State  of  California  and  paid  by  said  State,  but  no  portion  of  which  has 
ever  heretofore  been  reimbursed  said  State  by  the  United  States,  as  per 
tables  hereto  annexed. 


365 

Sixth — The  payment  to  the  State  of  California  by  the  United  States  of 
the  expenses  necessarily  incurred,  and  paid  in  cash  by  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, in  having  said  bonds  prepared  and  issued  under  the  two  aforesaid 
Acts  of  February  15,  1851,  and  May  3,  1852,  and  as  provided  for  therein, 
but  no  portion  of  which  has  ever  heretofore  been  reimbursed  said  State  by 
the  United  States,  as  per  tables  hereto  annexed. 

Seventh — The  payment  to  the  State  of  California  by  the  United  States 
of  the  interest  due  the  State  of  California  by  the  United  States  up  to  Jan- 
uary 1,  1885,  on  the  aforesaid  payments  by  said  State,  as  contained  in 
items  4,  5,  and  6,  between  the  dates  of  such  payments  by  said  State  and 
the  date  when  the  principal  shall  be  refunded  by  the  United  States^  as- 
sumed in  this  case  to  be  January  1,  1885,  and  which  interest  is  calculated 
up  to  first  January,  1885,  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum,  as  per 
tables  hereto  annexed. 

Annexed  hereto  and  made  a  part  hereof  are  tables  that  are  intended  to 
fully  and  specifically  show: 

First — The  aggregate  claim  of  the  State  of  California  in  these  premises. 

Second — The  aggregate  claim  of  the  individual  holders  of  her  said  bonds, 
with  coupons  attached  thereto. 

Third — The  aggregate  claim  of  the  individual  holders  of  the  unpaid 
coupons  detached  from  said  bonds  paid  by  the  United  States,  and  which 
coupons  represent  interest  earned  by  said  bonds  between  January  1,  1854^ 
and  September  1,  1856,  on  which  last  date  said  bonds  were  paid  by  the 
United  States. 

Also  annexed  hereto  and  made  a  part  hereof  are  the  tables,  which  show 
in  detail — 

First — Table  A. — The  Specific  Indian  war  bonds  and  coupons  attached 
thereto,  issued  by  said  State  under  the  two  aforesaid  Acts  of  February  15, 
1851,  and  May  3,  1852,  which  have  not  been  paid  by  the  State  of  Califor- 
nia, but  which  have  heretofore  been  paid  by  the  United  States  up  to 
December  15,  1884. 

Second — Table  B. — The  Specific  Indian  war  bonds  and  coupons  at- 
tached thereto,  issued  by  said  State  under  the  aforesaid  Acts  of  February 
15,  1851,  and  May  3,  1852,  which  have  heretofore  been  paid  and  redeemed 
by  the  State  of  California,  prior  to  December  15,  1884,  but  never  paid  by 
the  United  States,  and  for  which  and  the  matters  connected  therewith  the 
State  of  California  is  now  fully  and  justly  entitled  to  be  reimbursed  by  the 
United  States,  and  with  interest  thereon  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent  per 
annum,  from  the  dates  of  such  payment  by  said  State  up  to  January  1, 
1885. 

Third — Table  C— The  Specific  Indian  war  bonds  issued  by  said  State, 
and  coupons  attached  thereto,  now  outstanding,  and  none  of  which  have 
ever,  as  yet,  been  paid  either  by  the  State  of  California  or  by  the  United 
States. 

Fourth — Table  D. — The  amount  represented  by  coupons  being  for  inter- 
est earned  from  January  1,  1854,  to  September  1,  1856,  which  coupons  on 
said  last  date  were  detached  from  the  bonds  issued  under  the  two  afore- 
said State  statutes  and  returned  to  the  holders  of  the  bonds  to  which  they 
pertained,  and  which  coupons  were  left  unpaid  (while  the  bonds  them- 
selves on  first  September,  1856,  together  with  coupons  for  interest  earned 
up  to  January  1,  1854,  were  redeemed  and  paid  by  the  United  States), 
and  which  detached  coupons  have  never  been  paid,  either  by  the  State  of 
California  or  by  the  United  States,  up  to  the  date  of  this  statement,  Decem- 
ber 15,  1884. 

Appended  hereto  is  also  a  copy  of  a  letter  marked  Exhibit  E,  from  the 


366 

office  of  the  Third  Auditor  of  the  Treasury,  dated  February  16,  1882,  and 
from  which  letter  it  appears  that  up  to  January  10^  1872^  the  United  States 
had  paid  to  the  holders  of  said  bonds  and  coupons  the  sum  of  $914,071  02. 
Subjoined  hereto  is  also  the  additional  legislation  of  Congress,  bearing 
date  subsequent  to  August  18,  1856,  on  this  same  subject,  and  as  follows, 
to  wit:  on  June  23,  1860  (U.  S.  Stats.,  vol.  12,  p.  104),  Congress  enacted  a 
law  as  follows,  to  wit: 

■x-  *  *  *  *  *•*  *  *  *  *  * 

Section  4.  And  he  it  further  enacted,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be  and  he  is  hereby- 
authorized  to  pay  out  of  the  unexpended  balance  of  appropriation  for  the  war  debt  of  the 
State  of  California,  made  by  the  last  section  of  the  Act  approved  August  fifth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  fifty-four,  entitled  "  An  Act  making  appropriation  for  the  support  of  the 
army  for  the  year  ending  the  thirtieth  of  June,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-five,"  any 
outstanding  aiid  unpaid  bonds  and  coupons  issued  hy  said  State  for  said  war  debt  prior 
to  the  passage  of  said  Act,  but  bearing  date  subsequent  to  the  first  day  of  January, 
eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-four;  provided,  that  no  payment  shall  be  made  beyond  the 
unexpended  amount  of  said  appropriation  now  remaining  in  the  Treasury."      *  * 

And  again,  on  July  25,  1868  (U.  S.  Stats.,  vol.  15,  p.  175),  Congress  en- 
acted a  law  as  follows,  to  wit: 

To  reappropriate  an  unexpended  balance  of  an  appropriation  made  by  Act  approved 
August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-four,  "  to  refund  to  the  State  of  California  ex- 
penses incurred  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities,"  said  balance  having  lapsed  and  been 
covered  into  the  Treasury  on  the  thirtieth  of  June,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-three, 
ten  thousand  one  hundred  and  eighty-three  dollars  and  sixty-three  cents;  provided,  that 
nothing  shall  be  paid  except  subject  to  existing  provisions  of  law,  and  upon  the  finding 
and  certificate  of  the  Third  Auditor  that  the  same  is  actually  due. 

Under  these  two  laws  the  United  States  paid  one  $500  bond,  to  wit,  No. 
186,  issued  November  29,  1852,  under  the  aforesaid  Act  of  May  3,  1852, 
principal  and  interest  of  which,  represented  by  earned  coupons,  aggregated 
the  sum  of  $538  11. 

Again,  Congress,  on  March  3,  1881  (U.  S.  Stats.,  vol.  21,  pages  510,  511), 
enacted  a  law  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  he  and  he  is  hereby  directed  to 
pay  out  of  the  unexpended  balance  of  an  appropriation  of  $924,259  65,  under  the  third 
section  of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  5,  1854,  the  sum  of  $1,290  56,  which  last 
named  amount  is  hereby  reappropriated  to  pay  to  the  lawful  holders  of  four  California 
Indian  war  bonds,  issued  by  said  State  on  the  eighteenth  day  of  May,  1856,  under  the 
provision  of  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  thereof  approved  May  3, 1852,  for  the  suppression 
of  Indian  hostilities  therein,  numbered,  respectively.  164,  166,  167,  168,  each  bond  being  for 
the  sum  of  $250,  and  bearing  interest  from  date  of  'issue  at  the  rate  of  seven  per  centum 
per  annum,  the  amount  herein  appropriated  being  for  the  principal  of  said  bonds,  with 
interest  thereon  from  date  of  issue  until  the  first  of  July,  1860;  provided,  said  bonds  shall 
not  be  paid  except  out  of  any  amount  remaining  unapplied  of  the  appropriation  of 
$924,259  65  heretofore  made. 

Under  this  last  law  the  United  States  paid  four  $250  bonds,  to  wit,  Nos. 
164,  166,  167,  and  168,  all  dated  May  18,  1856,  and  all  issued  under  the 
aforesaid  Act  of  May  3,  1852,  the  principal  and  interest  represented  by 
coupons  aggregating  the  sum  of  $1,288  36. 

So  that  of  the  bonds  and  coupons  thereto  attached,  as  issued  under  the 
two  aforesaid  Acts  of  the  Legislature  of  California  of  February  15,  1851, 
and  May  3,  1852,  the  United  States  have  up  to  December  15,  1884,  paid 
the  several  sums  as  follows,  to  wit: 

First  payment  (between  September  1,  1856,  and  January  10,  1872). $914,071  02 

Second  payment,  March,  1872 538  11 

Third  payment,  March,  1881 .- - ---- ---         1,288  36 

Aggregating $915,897  49 

Original  appropriation  by  Congress 924,259  65 

Balance $8,362  16 


367 

Leaving  an  unexpended  balance,  to  fifteenth  of  December,  1884,  of  the 
original  appropriation  of  $8,362  16,  which  unexpended  balance  has  been 
heretofore  carried  into  the  surplus  fund  in  the  United  States  Treasury,  and 
as  now  shown  by  the  books  thereof. 

Herewith,  also  (except  the  Tables  contained  therein,  which  having  been 
revised  and  corrected  by  me,  in  consequence  of  the  redemption  by  the 
United  States,  since  the  date  of  said  report,  of  certain  bonds  enumerated 
in  said  report,  and  which  tables,  as  now  amended,  are  annexed  hereto), 
will  be  found  a  copy  of  a  portion  of  the  official  report  of  the  late  Controller 
of  the  State  of  California,  Hon.  W.  B.  C.  Brown,  dated  May  27,  1878,  and 
as  by  him  addressed  to  the  then  Governor  of  California,  Hon.  William 
Irwin,  in  accordance  with  Assembly  Joint  Resolution,  No.  73,  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  California,  March  30,  1878,  and  which  report  (Exhibit  F)  throws 
much  official  light  on  this  subject. 

Wherefore,  in  the  name  and  on  behalf  of  the  State  of  California,  I  report 
that  there  is  now  equitably  due  the  State  of  California  by  the  United 
States,  the  sum  of  $110,947  38,  which  sum  should  be  paid  by  the  United 
States  to  reimburse  said  State  for  the  indebtedness  by  her  necessarily 
incurred  and  by  her  heretofore  paid  for  the  common  defense  in  the  man- 
ner and  at  the  dates  as  hereinbefore  fully  stated  or  referred  to,  and  as  will 
more  fully  appear  by  the  following: 

Table  showing  the  aggregate  claim,  of  the  State  of  California  against  the  United,  States  in  the 
matter  of  certain  .California  Indian  war  bonds,  issued  by  said  State  under  the  authority  of  the 
Acts  of  her  Legislature,  approved  February  15, 1851,  and  May  3, 1852,  respectively. 

The  United  States  to  the  State  of  California,  Dr. 

First — For  the  redemption  and  payment  of  certain  California  Indian  war 
bonds  and  coupons  attached  thereto,  issued  by  the  State  of  California  under 
the  Act  of  her  Legislature,  approved  May  3,  1852,  which  were  redeemed  and 
paid  in  cash  by  said  State  out  of  her  own  State  Treasury  prior  to  fifeenth 
December,  1884,  together  with  interest  thereon,  calculated  at  6  per  cent  per 
annum  up  to  January  1,  1885,  as  per  Table  B .|81,103  43 

Second — For  the  redem|)tion  and  payment  of  certain  certificates  of  indebted- 
ness issued  by  the  Treasurer  of  the  State  of  California  in  payment  of  Cali- 
fornia Indian  war  expenses,  and  which  certificates  were  redeemed  and  paid 
in  cash  by  said  State  out  of  her  own  State  Treasury  prior  to  fifteenth  Decem- 
ber, 1884,  together  with  interest  thereon,  calculated  at  6  per  cent  per  annum 
up  to  January  1,  1885,  as  per  Table  G... ._. ..- 22,550  95 

Third — For  the  reimbursement  and  payment  of  certain  expenses  necessarily 
incurred  by  the  State  of  California,  and  paid  in  cash  by  said  State  out  of  her 
own  State  Treasury  prior  to  fifteenth  December,  1884,  for  preparing  and 
issuing  the  California  Indian  war  bonds,  as  provided  for  by  the  Act  of  her 
Legislature,  approved  February  15,  1851,  together  with  interest  thereon  cal- 
culated up  to  January  1, 1885,  as  per  Table  H 4,433  00 

Fourth — For  the  reimbursement  and  payment  of  certain  expenses  necessarily 
incurred  by  the  State  of  California,  and  paid  in  cash  by  said  State  out  of  her 
own  State  Treasury  prior  to  fifteenth  December.  1884,  for  preparing  and 
issuing  the  California  Indian  war  bonds,  as  provided  for  hj  the  Act  of  her 
Legislature,  approved  May  3,  1852,  together  with  interest  thereon  calculated 
up  to  January  1,  1885,  as  per  Table  I 2,860  00 


Total  aggregate  claim  of  the  State  of  California  against  the  United  States  up  to 
first  January,  1885,  arising  under  the  aforesaid  Acts  of  February  15,  1851, 
and  May  3,  1852 $110,947  38 

Respectfully,  JOHN  MULLAN, 

State  Agent  for  the  State  of  California. 
Washington  City,  D.  C,  December  15, 1884. 

Washington  City, 

District  of  Columbia. 

John  Mullan,  on  first  being  duly  sworn,  says  that  he  is  now  the  State 
Agent  for  the  State  of  California,  and  temporarily  residing  in  the  City  of 


368 

Washington,  for  the  purpose,  among  other  things,  of  presenting  the  claims 
of  the  State  of  California  before  the  proper  authorities  and  departments  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States;  that  he  has  read  the  foregoing  state- 
ment and  the  several  tables  and  exhibits  thereto  attached  in  regard  to  the 
matter  of  California  Indian  war  claims  against  the  United  States,  and  the 
whole  thereof;  that  all  the  matters  therein  contained  (errors  and  omissions 
excepted)  are  true  of  his  own  knowledge,  except  as  to  those  matters  therein 
stated  upon  information  and  belief,  and  as  to  those  matters,  that  he  believes 
the  same  to  be  true. 

JOHN  MULLAN. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  fifteenth  day  of  December,  1884. 

[seal.]  N.  D.  ADAMS,  Notary  Public, 

In  and  for  the  City  of  Washington  and  District  of  Columbia. 


TABLE  A. 

List  of  alt  California  Indian  war  bonds,  with  interest,  issued  by  the  State  of  California  under 
the  Act  of  her  Legislattire,  approved  February  15,1851,  for  the  stippression  of  Indian  hostilities 
in  said  State,  which  have  beeyi  redeemed  and  paid  by  the  United  States  up  to  December  15,  I884. 


No. 


Date  of  Bond. 


Amount 
of  Bond. 


No. 


Date  of  Bond. 


Amount 
of  Bond. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34* 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42* 


April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 
April  1 


,1851. 
,  1851. 
, 1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851- 
,  1851- 
,  1851. 
,  1851- 
,  1851- 
,  1851- 
,  1851- 
,  1851- 
,1851. 
,  1851- 
,  1851 . 
,  1851- 
,  1851- 
,  1851- 
,  1851- 
,  1851- 
,  1851- 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851- 
,1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 
,  1851. 


$1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1.000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1.000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 


43 
44 
45 
46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67* 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74* 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 
101 
102 
103 
104 


April 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

Apri 

19, 

Apri 

19 

Apri 

19 

Apri 

19, 

1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 
1851 


$1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 


*  Those  so  noted  were  paid  as  dui)licates  in  lieu  of  the  original  bonds. 


869 

Table  A — Continued. 


Date  of  Bond. 


Amount 
of  Bond. 


No. 


Date  of  Bond. 


Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 
Apri 


•il9,  1851.- 
119,1851-- 
•il9,  1851 -- 
•il9,  1851.- 
•il9,  1851.. 
•il9,  1851.- 
•il9,  1851 -- 
•il9,  1851 -- 
•il9,  1851.. 
•il9,  1851.. 
•il9,  1851.- 
•il9,  i851-- 
•il9,  1851.. 
■il  11,  1851. 
•il  21,  1851. 
•il  21,  1851- 
•il  21, 1851. 
•il  21, 1851. 
1121,1851- 
1121,1851. 
11  21, 1851. 
1121,1851. 
11  21, 1851- 
_  1121,1851. 
May  24,1351.. 
May  24,1851.. 
May  24,1851-. 
May  24, 1851- - 
May  24, 1851  - - 
Mav24, 1851-- 
May  24,1851-- 
May  24, 1851-- 
May  24, 1851-- 
May  24, 1851-. 
May  24, 1851- - 
May  24, 1851.. 
May  24,1851-. 
May  24,1851.. 
May  24, 1851.. 
May  24, 1851.. 
May  24,1851-. 
May  24, 1851.. 
May  24,1851.. 
June  10,  1851. 
June  10,  1851. 
June  10,  1851. 
June  10,  1851. 
June  10,  1851. 
June  10,  1851. 
June  10,  1851. 
June  10,  1851. 
June  10,  1851. 
June  10,  1851. 
June  10,  1851. 
June  10,  1851- 
Juue  10,  1851. 
June  10,  1851. 


$1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1;000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 


165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
268 


June  10, 1851 
June  10,  1851 
June  10,  1851 
June  10,  1851 
June  10,  1851 
June  10,  1851 
June  10,  1851 
June  10,  1851 
June  10,  1851 
June  10,  1851 
June  10,  1851 
July  25, 1851- 
July  25, 


July  25, 
July  25: 
July  25; 
July  25 
July  25: 
July  25 
July  25, 
July  25 
July  25 
July  25 
July  25 
July  25 
July  25 
July  25 
July  25 
July  25 
July  25 
July  25 
July  25; 
July  25; 
July  25; 
July  25, 
July  25! 
July  25: 
July  25, 
July  25: 
July  25, 
July  25! 
July  25 
July  25, 
July  25, 
July  25, 
July  25; 
July  25: 
July  25 
July  25 
July  25: 
July  25: 
July  25: 
July  25: 
July  25, 
July  25 
April  8, 


1851.. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851 -. 
1851- . 
1851.. 
1851- . 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851 -. 
1851.. 
1851 -. 
1851 -. 
1851.. 
1851- . 
1851 -. 
1851 -. 
1851 -. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851 -. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851 -. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851 -. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851 -. 
1851.. 
1851.. 
1851 -. 


24 


370 

Table  A — Continued. 

List  of  all  California  Indian  war  bonds  issued  by  the  State  of  California  under  the  Act  of  her 
Legislature,  approved  May  3,  1862,  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  said  State, 
which  have  been  redeemed  and  paid  by  the  United  States  up  to  December  15, 1884- 

First — Bonds  bearing  date  prior  to  January  1,  1854,  with  interest  upon  the  coupons  up 
to  the  first  day  of  January,  1854 : 


No.  of  Bond. 

Amount  of 
each  Bond. 

No.  of  Bond. 

Amount  of 
each  Bond. 

1  to  341  inclusive 

$1,000 
500 
500 
500 
500 
500 
250 

70  to  105,  inclusive 

$250 

1  to    90  inchisive 

1  to  114  inclusive 

100 

92  to  185  inclusive 

116  to  131  inclusive 

100 

186                     .  - 

164  to  218,  inclusive 

100 

187  to  306  inclusive 

220  to  267,  inclusive 

100 

308  to  399  inclusive 

272  to  296,  inclusive 

lOO 

1  to    68^  inclusive 

Second — Bonds  bearing  date  subsequent  to  the  first  of  January,  1854,  with  coupons  paid 
to  the  first  of  July,  1860: 


No.  of  Bond. 

Amount  of 
each  Bond. 

No.  of  Bond. 

Amount  of 
each  Bond. 

403                            -                

$500 
500 
500 
500 
500 
250 
250 
250 

121 

122 

$250 

409 

250 

410 

123 

250 

411 

124 .- 

250 

413                   

125 - 

250 

108 

126 

250 

109 

140 

250 

110 -. 

149. 

250 

Table  A— Continued. 


Second— Bonds  bearing  date  subsequent  to  the  first  of  January,  1854,  with  coupons  paid 
to  the  first  of  July,  1860— Continued. 


Number  of  Bond. 


Amount  of 
each  Bond. 


Number  of  Bond. 


Amount  of 
each  Bond. 


302 
324 
325 
326 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
342 
343 


$100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 


344 
345 
346 
347 
350 
358 
359 
366 
370 
375 
376 


$100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 


Third— Bonds  bearing  date  subsequent  to  the  first  of  January,  1854,  with  coupons  paid 
to  the  first  of  July,  1860: 

Number  of  Bond. 

Amount  of 
each  Bond. 

Number  of  Bond. 

Amount  o 
each  Bond. 

164 

$250  00 
250  00 

167 - 

$250  00 

165                               

168 - 

250  00 

371 


«> 

i  «■ 

s 

I 

8i 

s? 

"o-JS 

^ 

g^ 

S"^ 

'^ 

~  "^ 

S^ 

^ 

^■^ 

^^J 

o-^ 

1 

g'^So 

o,< 

•i 

1; 

ll 

©■ 

>>»  o. 

<o  B 

e 

S-.    ^ 

3^ 

?^ 

« 

^^ 

■< 

fe"^ 

^ 

?i 

►o 

Tg 
V 

j'& 

s 

•"  ^ 

.1 

:S^^ 

«c 

^« 

ts 

S 

^^ 

W     t 

S  i 

^-^ 

1"s> 

H     -3 

C^^ 

»^ 

S~     « 

.^^ 

^^ 

j» 

« 

Srjg 

-o-^ 

^ 

-^^ 

a 

;s^ 

?i,'r^ 

?^ 

'^'^ 

g 

e  » 

^? 

CO 

sCQ  e 

^ 

:^'^ 

S 

§e 

^f 

'TS  ?: 

S 

^.iS 

g 

5 

*-"o 

'e  e 

'S 

e  e 

e 

4^^  I 


o  ©■     a 


lO 


I  111 


^  "^  S'  'H  -r 


M         73 


oUm 


No.  of  Bond,      ggj 


lOimoimo  lo  o  co'  ci"  cc  c^  o  o  co  eo  lo  »o  c^c^c^  c^^  <n  (M  < 

C0C0fCCCSCi0i0i0»C'i0(>1Ni0(M>0O^-t<CCe0C0'-IOOOOiM0i'-li-lr-lT-» 
CCCCCOCCCOCOfOCOCOCOCOCOCOCCCOCOTCCOCCCOCOfOCCCOCOfOCO^CCCOCOCO 

CO  CO  CO  CO  o^  CO  CO  CO  cococo  CO  CO  cc  CO  CO  CO  CO  coco  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  coco  CO  CO  CO 


■  ^^|^  H''  ^■J''  H''  HI'  <'J'''  ^'J''  H''  H''  (^1'  Hi'  )^ii  (^''  HI  H-J'-  HI'  H"H''  H''  H^'  (■J''  H''  H'' H'      >  H''  H''  H''  H> 

t—t^t^l^t^^iC'^'TfTtiOOCCCCCCCCOJCSt^OOOOOCOClCOCOCOOlC'i— ll— IkOlO 
C<liMC^(M<^qOOiOOQCODI:^t--r-t-l:^iOiOCOi-H7-li-lT-lt^t^CCi:CCCOiMCMOO 

I0i0k0>0i0ici0k0ici0i0i0ici0^i0i0i0i0vci0i0v0i0i0>0^>0»0i0i0i0 


CC  CC  O  CC  CD 
r'r  r^  ro  r^  ro  r 


i-H  i-H  1-H  tH  00  OC  00 


^   ^CC  CC  CO  ^ 
00  1—1  00  00  00  00 


3  P 


.,  I  !;•,;,  icD  .!!  I  ......  .CO 

III.  .  CD  CD  ■  CO  '  00  '  .  .  .  'COCOcDrccC  '  ^O 
CDCOCDCOCOCOCOCDCOCDi-lCOCDCDCOCOCDCDcD^CC^'-' 
COCOCOCDCOOOOOCOOOCO      -COCOCOCOCCOOOOon^nnnCD      . 

0O0O,-li-IO0i-l00^O0O0O0O0O0i-(iHSr2°^  — 

i-li-l       ^.,1-1       ^,-HCOrH,-l,-lT-(i-l       „     ^     „     ,     „         -  - 

cToi"  CO  CO  cTco  "^'to  lo 'arcTcrar  CO  ro  ^  ^  ^  <^'"co  cTo^a  oT 

.--wwM^-^-.r-r-tHrH^bCM^^^Hj-.fc^er'r-'rieSH&Cf-.f-i^-iM 

;  ^  5  p-PhPkP,p.5  5  ^5  a,^  q,^p^^p.^  ^  5  ^  ^  ^^  p.&&p* 

iH^^-5<1<{<!<!<ll-5l-5<1r^<1<l1<1<^<!<j<^h--5h-5H-5l-5H-s<!l<|<1<i<1-<< 


ICOOO 


C<)C<l(MC^<MOOiOOOOOOl^t^t^I:^t— iCiOCO' 


1  00  00  10  10  CO  CO  O  1 
,-1  r-lt- t- CD  CD  CD  < 


;s 


S88S8S88888S88S8888888888S88S8S8 
888888888S8S8888888888888S888888 


00  00  00  00  < 


OldOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

OCQCQOGOOOi-li-li-li-li-l^r-lr-l      ..        „„„„„,  ^.  ^. 
^^,_(^,_(   ____.„„^..„,  .00  00  00  00  00  QO  2i  ±i 

I  coco  CO 


VQ  >0  O  10  lO  ^ 

Qoop3cooop(j;:iioioioio 

>i  t>>  >i  >j  >i  >j  >j  t>»c<r(M' oi  oi  r:j  5^ '"l   „  .-  ^ 
>s>j>it>i>j>j>»l>i>i>»>;>i>j>i>H  ;h  t^  ^H  ;h  ;h  ^h  ;h(M(M(M(mco^oooooo 

§  §  §  §  5  3  ^  §  g  S  g  §  §  llllllllim  o|  S:^:^.'^^ 


CiOr-l(MCO'*lOCDt^QOOiO'— .(MCOt^COOCOi— ICJQ- 
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOeOCOCOCOCOCO' 


I  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  coco  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  COCO  CO 


372 


O  <n  -S  "^ 

o  ©  ■"  fl 
EH   S         cS 


OiOC^OSCOir^t^t^OiOi' 


I  (M  CD  Oi  00  CC'  CC  < 
'  CO  O  CO  ^  <M  C^  c 


lOt^t^t^COCOCOO-lCOvOi— ICOCCCO(NC<100000COO 
iCOCOCOCOCCCCCOCOiTOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 


CO(M  C<1 


O  TtH   M< 

CO  00  CO 


CO  CO  CO 
00  00  00 


^  s  s  -^  =o 


lOVOiOiOlOiOrtHi— ICOCOCO(MCvI(MOOC<|(MC5i:DCOCC>iOIOt-Ii— liHi—lr- lTt<^ 
t^t^t^t^l^t^t^C^t^t^t^l^t^t^COt^t^CDCDCDCOCDCDCOCOCCiCCCDlOiO 
rHT-fi— IrHi-HiHrHi— IrHT-lTHiHr-li— (THiHiHi-HrHiHrHiHiHrHTHiHiHiHiHTH 


t^  rH  Tti  CO  C<l  CD 
CD  ^  -^  ^  Tf  CO 

tH  TJ^  "^  "^  -^   TjH 


|2  = 


CD  lO  "^  O  Ttl  Tfl  1— I  ( 
(M  ©  O  00  CD  CD  tP  1 


COCDCDCDCDCDCDCDcS^<^'^^<^'<^'-ICDCDCD 
CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDof^CDCDCDCDCDCD      ^CDCDOOCD 


oooooooooooooooo: 


!cDCD 
000000      •       I      '      "      '       I      I       iCDCD 
i^.^.p_l!^^COCDCDCDCDCDCDCD 

'      „„     „CD  CDCDCOCOCDCDCDOOOO 

GOCOOOOOQOOOi— lOOOOrHOOOOOOOOOOT-H,— I,— lOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOi— (■^ 

P^PHP^P^P^P^aP^g    P.  &  P^  A  P- P<  13    P^  ft  P,  fl,  O^  ft  p^  Ch  ^3    0   0    ftftftftftftftftftft 


O    o   S 

-<       o 


OlOit—t^lOiOOOOOOOC 
ClCyiCiCiCOCOCDCDCD- 


ii0U0^O>Oi0i0i0iOi0'*i'^-*TtiTt<'*i-<^TtiTt<Tj<C0C0rf^-rtH'^-#^ 


c  a> 


88S88888888S888S888SSS888S888888S888S 
8888888888888888888S888888888888gggSS 

THTHiHiHi-HiHTH,HTHrHiHTHTH,-HTHT--l,HT-HiHi-li--lTHTHrH,-(iHT-l,-lr-lrHi-lTHCv|(>lC^C<lCq 


!  lO  lO 


^  ^  -tH  ogoo 
>0  Ut)  lO  '-I '— ' 

00  00  00  _,-.'-^  o 
^  1— I  rri 


i  ^H  Pi  ^I'M 


00  00- 


1  lO  lO  lO  1^  lO  t~- t^ 

■  QOICOOOOOOCCOOCXDOO^^OO 

rAr^rr^rArr^n^r^^ .  .  "^ -^ -^ -^  ^  ^  ^.^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  4^    ^  ^OO"  ^  ^ 


oo'oo^oo^od  cxTtDcd      ^- 
C^  C-l  !M  (M  (M  (M  (M  i^'O 


'^-fJ 


f-t  ci  a 
;3  ^H  ^ 
-.  oj  a> 


COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCb^TJ^■<*1TJ^■rt^Tf<rt^TtiT^Tt^T}^^ 


373 


IrHlOOrHlOO 

1— I  1-H  00  00  00  00  00  < 

ii— li— I^C5C5C:oOOOCO'*'n<CieOCOOC<iai050505(M(M(M(MC500iOiOOO< 
COCOCOCOCOCOC<li--lT-l,--i,-li-li-li-lr-IOOOOO'<ti(M<M(M(MOOOOOD0000000  1^t^CD< 
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOt— t^t^l^t^t—  l—t^t^l^COCOCOCOCCCOt 


-  cq  Oi  t^  t^  CO  (M 
'  CO  O  »C  lO  ic  ^ 

I  CO  CO  ^  CD  CO  CD 


1  lO  lO  1 

1  00  00  ( 


T}iTfH-<*<Ttl-^-*->#"*'<*I^^^Tf-<tl-<:*<TjHTfl-^-rt<COCCe0COCO-*-^-<*<Tt<00O00000X00000000000000( 


H|0CHCCrH|COrH|OCi-l|00rH|CCrH|0CH0O 

OcccorHeococooooo^tMoooooooor^t^r^t-t-t^t^ 

iHCOCOiH»OlO>OTHrHTti<MCOCOCOCOC<l<MC<IC<ICOCOCO 


II  <^ii  (>jii  HI'  W<±1'<  U'<  H''  HI'  (^Ii 

CDCOiMOOiOOOOO(MOO 

TWi-ICa(MO»O(M(M00<M 


OiOiaiCiOiCioooooooooooo< 

COMCOCOC0C0C0C0COCOCOC0O:)00COC0COCOMC0COCOC0CCMC0C0C0  1-^l>-t^l-^t--l:^l>-t^t^l>t^t^t^ 


01C505C50i05C5Ci05CiCi01'*iiC'* 


CiO5O5O5OiOia)O5^'^':t<'tij?5OJai0iO5050iOi05O50i0:^ 
'C  'Jh  'Jh  "Jh  '£h  'E  '5h  '5h  'SiJ  'C  'S  'C  'C  'C  "E    c  'Si  'C  'S  *C  'C  'C  'C  'C  'C  "Sh  'C  'fn    r;  '^H  'C  *C  'E  'Jh  'u  'u  'u  'u  '5h  "tn  'C 


.  -  ^     .      .      .  I  (.Ji'^g'r  HM^'MvJM'J 

(Moboooooor^t^t^t^t^t-i-^cDccfN 

-*C<ICCCCC0C0C<IC^iM<MCCC0C0T-lin-(05 


I' J'Jii  HI'  ^-Ji'  (^1'  ('Jii'l-Ji 
O  Q  O  00  00  (M  00 
(N  O  O  C<»  CM  00  <M 


lOilOCOCOi-HOOOOCO 
i  00  00  00  0000  00  00  t-t^ 


888888S8SS8SS8S8888SS8S8S888S8888888888SS 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOO 
I0i0i0>0i0>0i0i0i0i0i0i0i0i0i00i0i0i0i0i0ici0>0i0i00i00000000000000 


^oo"22  <» 

=3    «3    w    w 

a3  0)  =^  =3 


00  00 


^»0  voS 
-00  aC  00  CO 


222tdCa3  a;  a3  qj  ^"^"^r'S '^' '"''"' '"'    " 


^^  io 

I     I     I     1-*^-*  iOiOOO_u  _„ 

lo    .  lo    >    1    •  vo  »o  lO  lo  lo  lo  lo  00  00  i-H  3!:  :* 

00      lOOt-t^t^lOlOlOlOOOOOOOi-lT-l      ,iS  i5 
iH  CO  i-H  10  10  10  00  00  00  00  1-1  1-1  1-H       .      -rri  30  00 

-vo     ,00  ac  ao  t-i  i-i  T-i  r-f     ,,. 


^^ 


_  ::i  3  a>  <u  oj  oj 

O  ?3  3  S  ^ 


1— I  n  1— I  r-l       ,     ,     ,t^  r^  CM 
,     ,     ,     ,Utl  10  10  01  (N    v^-- 


rdBSPnP'P^P-'^CaoSCQ.n.ri.rHi-rrrjCCGCC'^cScS 
•-s*1<(C>QCZ2C»C>Qi-sH^<HSi-s<i<5<,<!<q<!<qi-5r-5t-5l-st-5[si^S 


PhPiPiPjH  g  ^  ^ 


I  00  00  10 


P.PhP,=3 


'ti  00 
Ooo 


<D'-S 
eS  O 


i0CDt^C00iOt^i-(C<)e0t^06Tt<t^00Ot--0001vO0iOi— fC<)COt^00050i-*C<I'^40CDI:^OOC<lTt<iOr^01 
i-lTHr--lr-lT-IC<lC<lC0C000f0C0Tt<'*^»Oi0iOiOCDC0  1--t^l:^i-li-li-li-IOOOOOOOOr-i,-i,-lrHT-l 


374 


the 
date 

1868 

*~  ^    - 

-^-^ 

§^^ 

e^  1? 

Californi 
ed  thereo7 
proved  M 

>t^ 

e    ^ 

-to  <to  ^ 

^2  "S  * 

he  S 
ntere 
ids 

^•^  o 

-1"^ 

■^^  "» 

T? 

0) 

's^s  ^ 

PI 

C 

J-  "^-^ 

o 

Y 

^l^o^ 

ISI 

PQ 

Ind 
er  % 
the 

<: 

-*=  g 

H 

s  ?^-§ 

5^-^^ 

h^'^ 

^^T. 

j^'^^ 

g  e  g 

^«^ 

.-^^ 

Hi 

of  ce 

by  s 

ereto 

,   TS-^ 

s  S^^ 

i^^ 

^  p  § 

ilil 
lis? 


i3 


So  §g 

O    CB.O    § 


13  ^  g     S 

S>    O    O    Or-I 

S  g  o  ^.  S 
^=2  J'°  a 


o  2i 
< 


No.  of  Bond 


oooooooooo^-^ 


'  lO  ^  lO  ■<*'  -^ 


coco 


00( 


:00 


_  OOQOCDCD 

,     ^     -     ^CD  CC  CD  00  CO 

,-|7-Ii-I,-I00O0COi-ItH 

CO  CO  CO  CO  ^ '-I  tH      _     ^ 

^  ^  ^  ^  c^Tc^fi^fZ!!  ^ 

o  o  a  o  ^  ,    ^  :;5:;d 

c3c3c3o3c5cSo3p^fi| 


COCOCpCDlOOlOCOCO 


88SS8SS88 
888888888 


lO  lO  lO  If 

00  00  COCX-      ■ 

CO  CO  CO  CO  '30 

■+0  -+3  -M  +3  ivTco^co'   rH    r^ 

S  2  2  2?ioics  S  S 

^3^2:33^"        ^    ID  <v 
U)  be  be  be  >^  P^  >^.  >■  > 

13  -3  13  3^^  =«  O  O 


cSOO 
Ul      - 

^^ 

^H     O 

-fj  O 

0'+-' 

H 


375 


^  ^-1 

^^•§ 
"^    «•-' 

S  S  £! 

lie 


s:  ^  <to 


iiif 


o  aj"-  a 
HP        o3 


=3  -  gj       CO 

o  a  S  „  00 


a  5  §, 

la- 

<!  o  g 

3-C-2 


No.  of  Bond 


lO  t^  lO  t--  -^  Oi 

t^  lO  CO  '^  1— I  tH 


t-CO  QO- 
CCCC-+I  I 
CO  t^rH  : 


t^  C5  t^  CO  (M  Oi 

1-1  COCO  t^  O  t^ 


O 

OOOI- 

00  GO  00  1-1 


iOOO< 


<M 


(M 


i-l(M  rH 

OOOO 
01  1-1  C^ 


oo 

00  00 


^TtH 


a  a  a  ch         cs  a 


t-05  r^CO  CD  CO 

CO  CO  CD  t^  lO  -^ 

iHCO        <M 


8888       88 


^ 


<V( 


O)  j3  a> 
ci  Z,  <^  ^ 


CO    C 

3  ^ 


03 

o 

Is 


-I 

c3^ 

'-I  h 


g 

.2 

§ 

e*^ 

<»r 

ie 

o 

s 

-^ 

^ 

« 

^^ 

cc 

.°? 

s 

1 

> 

5S 

.^ 

«co 

is. 

^.^ 

V. 

^ 

s^ 

o 

?;^ 

«1^ 

^ 

w 

^ 

^ 

O-iS 

A 

1 

1^ 

^ 

^ 

's 

s 

55 

5^ 

1 

o 

.^ 

5i^ 

S 

ts 

C^ 

«<. 

^ 

« 

C 

r: 

'O 

V 

35 

^ 

r^ 

'e 

t 

i 

^ 

'^ 

^ 

-^ 

1^ 

> 

^ 

e 

rO 

'^ 

'V 

&i 

;s 

.^ 

H 

•2 

I 

^ 

*9 

'^ 

« 

fe 

w 

^ 

§.S, 


"s  g 


i"^  -S 


s  e  o 


§    K    O  1^ 

^11^ 


unt 
Cal- 

0 

L885. 

8 

11^- 

<-.5t^ 

^ 

otal 
est 
ifoi 
nua 

EH    =           « 

'^rs      hb 

1        jj> 

t  due  Cal 
a  from 
paymen 
iier  to 
y  1, 1885 

S 

1 

CD  a  o  >,  cs 

¥s- 

Icsl-'S 

a      c8     ^ 

w     -a     i-s 

•*- 

Z-^-i 

8 

gig. 

§ 

a  *  *j 

c^"" 

!^  a  * 

€«- 

*'C-2 

ofw  e 

H     ^ 

S 

a 

M 

-c 

a 

eS 

-O 

a 

o 

pq 

«4-l 

o 

a 

S 

S 

(M 

^ 

t— 

cS 

00 

^ 

o 

o 

<s 

•i^ 

cS 

P 

Sh 

pH 

< 

^^i 

8 

§ 

a  to.rt 

g£g 

s^ 

3-^  S 

<      ° 

8 

o  © 

s^- 

2- 

<5       o 

€«■ 

n3 

a 

o 

pq 

<«-< 

o 

o 

a 

ee 

a 

Sg 

M 

<<-i 

O 

1 

1 

i-T 

^ 

ft 

<1 

No.  of  Bond. 

^ 

a.a'^ 


C'-'     OJ    *  fH 


o   "'•go 
O   «-^oo 


-n  s;5 


"§5l 

*   -  £: 

-I-    05    o 

^  a  ® 

a  5  00 
Co® 

^  a  t- 


.a  £ 
If  ^' 


■g  2  o 

_  ®  a  a 

P5:5  2  •- 

"-'  -a  02 

O   00   t,  •—' 


^3  ® 


^"a.^  g 


c  -2  .""^  ,2  ® 

O  -2  £  g  ^ 

.a ;«  =;  .o  S 


t-      a  =3  M 

>J  r-    2    ^ 

ai  ri  at  *^ 

2§l^ 


376 


TABLE  C. 


List  of  all  California  Indian  war  bonds,  with  interest,  issued  by  the  State  of  California,  under 
the  Act  of  her  Legislature  approved  February  15, 1851,  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hos- 
tilities in  said  State  which  have  not,  up  to  December  15, 1884,  been  redeemed  or  paid  by  either 
said  State  or  by  the  United  States,  but  which  are  now  outstanding,  unpaid,  and  overdue. 


No. 


Date  of  Bond. 


Interest 

to  February 

15, 1861. 


Total. 


107 
108 
142 


April  9, 1851. 
April  9, 1851. 
May  24, 1851. 


$1,000  00 
1,000  00 
1,000  00 


Total  aggregate 


$1,182  00 
1,182  00 
1,167  00 


$2,182  00 
2,182  00 
2,167  00 


$6,531  00 


TABLE  C. 


List  of  all  California  Indian  war  bonds,  with  interest,  issued  by  the  State  of  California  under 
the  Act  of  her  Legislature  approved  May  3, 1852,  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities 
in  said  State  which  have  not,  tip  to  December  15,  I884,  been  redeemed  or  paid  by  either  said 
State  or  by  the  United  States,  but  which  are  now  outstanding,  unpaid,  and  overdue. 


No. 


Date  of  Bond. 


Amount. 


Interest  to 

May  2, 1862. 


Total. 


132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 


October  11, 
October  11, 
October  12, 
October  12, 
October  12, 
October  18, 
October  19, 
October  23, 
October  23, 
October  23, 
October  25, 
October  25, 
October  25, 
October  25, 
October  25, 
October  25, 
October  27, 
October  27, 
October  28, 
November 
November 
November 
November 
November 
November 
November 
November 
November 


1852.  _. 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1852... 

1, 1852. 

1, 185?. 

3, 1852. 

13, 1852. 

13, 1852. 

13, 1852. 

16,1852. 

18, 1852. 

18, 1852. 


Total  aggregate 


$100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 


$66  91 
66  91 
66  89 
66  89 
66  89 
66  77 
66  75 
66  67 
66  67 
66  67 
66  63 
66  63 
66  63 
66  63 
66  63 
66  63 
66  59 
66  59 
66  57 
66  51 
66  51 
66  47 
66  28 
66  28 
66  28 
66  22 
66  18 
66  18 


$166  91 
166  91 
166  89 
166  89 
166  89 
166  77 
166  75 
166  67 
166  67 
166  67 
166  63 
166  63 
166  63 
166  63 
166  63 
166  63 
166  59 
166  59 
166  57 
166  51 
166  51 
166  47 
166  28 
166  28 
169  28 
166  22 
166  18 
166  18 


$4,664  46 


377 

Table  C— Continued. 


Date  of  Bond. 


Interest  to 
May  2, 1862. 


November  22, 1852. 
November  22, 1852. 
November  25,1852. 
November  25, 1852. 

April  27, 1853 

August  13,  1853  ... 
August  13,  1853  ... 
August  13,  1853  ... 
August  13,  1853  ... 
January  19,  1854  .. 
January  19,  1854  .. 
March  29,  1854  .... 
March  31,  1854  .... 
March  31,  1154  .... 
March  31,  1854  .... 

April  12,  1854 

April  12, 1854 

April  17, 1854 

April  17, 1854 

April  25, 1854 

April  25,  1854 

April  25,  1854 

April  25,  1854 

May  13, 1854 

May  13,1854 

May  13,1854 

May  13,1854 

May  20, 1854 

May  26,1854 

June  6,1854 

July  10,  1854 

July  21,  1854 

August  7, 1854 

August  11,1854.... 
August  19, 1854.... 
September  2,  1854 
October  23,  1854  .. 
October  24, 1854... 
November  24, 1854. 
November  24, 1854 
November  24, 1854 
November  24, 1854. 
November  24, 1854 
April  4,  1855...... 

July  28,1855 

August  1,  1855 

August  13,1855.-.. 
August  13,1855... 
August  13,1855-.-. 
August  13,1855-.- 
November  25, 1852. 
Februarv3, 1854.- 

July  10,  1854 

Julv21,1854 - 

July  21, 1854 

July  21, 1854 

Julv21, 1854 

July  21,1854 

August  24, 1854... 
August  26, 1854-.. 
August  26, 1854... 
August  26, 1854--. 
September  14, 1854 
September  14, 1854 
October  18,  1854- - 
October  24,  1854  .. 
October  24,  1854  .  - 
October  24,  1854.. 
October  24, 1854... 


$100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  08 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  60 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 


$66  10 

66  10 

66  05 

66  05 

63  10 

61  04 

61  04 

61  04 

61  04 

58  20 

58  20 

56  64 

56  60 

56  60 

56  60 

56  39 

56  39 

56  29 

56  29 

56  14 

56  14 

56  14 

56  14 

55  85 

55  85 

55  85 

55  85 

55  53 

55  53 

55  33 

54  67 

54  47 

54  15 

54  07 

53  92 

53  67 

52  68 

52  66 

52  08 

52  08 

52  08 

52  08 

52  08 

49  54 

47  33 

47  27 

47  04 

47  04 

47  04 

47  04 

165  14 

144  33 

136  70 

136  15 

136  15 

136  15 

136  15 

136  15 

134  55 

134  55 

134  55 

134  55 

133  58 

133  58 

131  93 

131  64 

131  64 

131  eA 

131  64 


378 

Table  C — Continued. 


Date  of  Boud. 


Interest  to 
May  2, 1862. 


Total. 


156 
160 
161 
162 
163 
307 
416 
420 


October  24, 1854 
August  1,1855.. 
August  1, 1855 -- 
August  1,1855.- 
Augustl5, 1855- 

Mavl4  1853 

MaV  13;  1854..-. 
July  10,  1854 -._- 


Total  aggregate 


$250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  00 
250  90 
500  00 
500  00 
500  00 


$131  64 
118  17 
118  17 
118  17 
117  50 
313  83 
278  92 
273  38 


$381  64 
368  17 
368  17 
368  17 
367  50 
813  83 
778  92 
773  38 


$9,977  93 


TABLE  D. 

Amount  of  coupons  detached  from  bonds  paid  by  the  United  States  September  1,  1856,  and 
which  coupons  represent  interest  earned  by  said  bonds  between  January  i,  1854,  CL^^d  Sep- 
tember 1, 1856,  and  which  interest  has  never  heretofore  been  paid  either  by  the  United  States 
or  by  the  State  of  California. 

Interest  on  $197,000,  bonds  of  1851,  for  thirty-two  months,  from  January  1, 1854, 
to  September  1,  1856,  at  12  per  cent  per  annum $63,040  00 

Interest  on  $590,800,  bonds  of  1852,  for  thirty-two  months,  from  January  1, 1854, 
to  September  1,  1856,  at  7  per  cent  per  annum 110,282  66 

Total  aggregate $173,322  66 

TABLE  G. 

List  showing  the  amount  of  certificates  of  indebtedness  issued  by  the  Treasurer  of  the  State  of 
California  prior  to  January  1, 1854,  ^^  payment  of  California  Indian  war  expenses,  and  which 
certificates  were  redeemed  and  paid  in  cash  by  said  State  out  of  her  own  State  Treasury  prior 
to  the  fifteenth  of  December,  I884,  and  which  have  not  been  redeemed  or  paid  by  the  United 
States. 

Amount , $7,896  62 

Less  cash  received.. 11  67 

Balance $7,884  95 

Interest  due  State  of  California  from  January  1,  185'1,  to  January  1,  1885 14,666  00 

Total  amount  due  State  of  California  to  January  1,  1885 $22,550  95 

TABLE  H. 

List  showing  the  amount  of  expenses  necessarily  incurred  by  the  State  of  California,  and  paid  in 
cash  by  said  State  out  of  her  own  State  Treasury,  prior  to  December  15,  I884,  for  preparing  and 
issuing  the  California  Indian  war  bonds,  as  provided  for  by  the  Act  of  her  Legislature  approved 
February  15, 1851,  and  no  portion  of  which  amount  has  heretofore  been  reimbursed  said  State 
by  the  United  States. 

Amount $1,550  00 

Interest  due  State  of  California  from  January  1,  1854,  to  January  1,  1885 2,883  00 

Total  amount  due  State  of  California  to  January  1,  1885 $4,433  00 


TABLE  I. 

List  showing  the  amount  of  expenses  necessarily  incurred  by  the  State  of  California,  and  paid  in 
cash  by  said  State  out  of  her  own  State  Treasury,  prior  to  December  15,  I884,  for  preparing  and 
issuing  the  California  Indian  war  bonds,  as  provided  for  by  the  Act  of  her  Legislature  approved 
May  3, 1852,  and  no  portion  of  which  amount  has  heretofore  been  reimbursed  said  State  by  the 
United  States. 

Amount... $1,000  00 

Interest  due  State  of  California  from  January  1,  1854,  to  January  1,  1885.. 1,860  00 

Total  amount  due  State  of  California  to  January  1,  1885 $2,860  00 


379 


Exhibit  E. 


Letter  from  the  office  of  Third  Auditor  of  the  Treasury,  February  16, 1882: 
"I  have  to  state  that  under  Acts  of  August  5,  1854,  August  18,  185B,  June  23,  1860,  and 
July  25,  1868,  the  holders  of  bonds  of  said  State  who  have  presented  the  same  to  this 
Department  have  been  i)aid  the  sum  of  $914,071  02  for  principal  and  interest  which  had 
accrued  prior  to  January  1,  1854;  and  if  there  are  any  unpaid  bonds  and  accrued  interest 
which  are  considered  as  properly  chargeable  to  the  United  States,  no  good  reason  appears 
why  they  should  not  be  presented  to  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  for  settle- 
ment in  the  same  manner  as  those  heretofore  presented  and  paid,  under  any  statute  Con- 
gress may  deem  proper  to  enact,  and  the  appropriation  remain  in  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States,  to  be  drawn  from  as  the  claims  shall  be  presented  and  settled,  instead  of 
depositing  the  total  amount  of  the  appropriation  with  the  Treasurer  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, as  expressed  in  the  second  section  of  said  bill.  If  the  State  of  California  has  paid 
the  bonds  and  interest,  or  any  part  thereof,  she  should  present  her  claim  for  reimburse- 
ment, by  filing  the  bonds  and  coupons  paid  in  the  same  manner  as  individual  holders  and 
owners.  This  would  obviate  the  covering  back  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States 
any  unexpended  balance  which  might  be  retained  in  the  Treasury  of  the  State  for  years, 
as  the  bill  does  not  fix  a  time  for  returning  the  balance  to  the  Treasury  of  the  l/nited 
States." 

The   foregoing  letter  was  addressed  by  Hon.  A.  M.  Gangewer,  Acting 
Third  Auditor,  to  Hon.  Charles  J.  Folger,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury: 

Exhibit  F. 

Controller's  Report,  made  under  and  in  accordance  with  Assembly  Joint  Resolution  No. 
73,  March  30,  1878,  to  his  Excellency  the  Governor.  (Twenty-second  session  of  the  Legis- 
lature.) 

Controller's  Office,  Sacramento,  May  27,  1878. 
To  his  Excellency  William  Irwin,  Governor  of  California  : 

Sir:  In  conformity  with  your  request  made  under  the  authority  of  Assembly  Joint 
Resolution  No.  73,  adopted  March  30, 1878,  *  *  *  I  have  the  honor  to  make  the  follow- 
ing statement: 

I  find  upon  examination  of  War  Bond  Register  in  State  Treasurer's  Office,  and  other 
records  in  Controller's  office,  that,  under  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  California  approved 
February  15,  1851  (Statutes  1851,  page  520),  Indian  war  bonds  were  issued  by  the  State  of 
California  to  the  amount  of  $200,000,  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  twelve  per  cent  per 
annum,  and  payable  in  ten  years;  that  under  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  May  3,  1852 
(Statutes  of  1852,  page  59),  Indian  war  bonds  were  issued  by  the  State  of  California  to  the 
amount  of  $638,100,  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  seven  per  cent  per  annum,  and  payable 
in  ten  years. 

Of  the  principal  of  the  above  named  bonds  of  1851,  amounting  to  $200,000, 1  find,  accord- 
ing to  printed  report  of  William  Theodore  Van  Doren,  clerk  Third  Auditor's  office,  Wash- 
ington, made  January  10,  1872  (see  Appendix  to  Journal  of  California  Senate  and  Assem- 
bly for  the  nineteenth  session,  pages  28  and  29),  that  the  United  States  Government 
has  paid  $197,000;  that  of  the  principal  of  the  above  named  bonds  of  1852,  amounting  to 
$638,100  (according  to  said  report  of  William  Theodore  Van  Doren,  above  referred  to),  the 
United  States  Government  has  paid  .$598,450;  that  of  the  principal  of  the  last  above  named 
bonds  of  the  State  of  California  (according  to  Controller's  books)  has  paid  $22,850,  leaving 
outstanding,  of  the  principal  of  the  bonds  of  1851,  $3,000;  of  the  principal  of  the  bonds  of 
1852,  $16,800,  together  with  interest  on  the  same.    *    *    * 

Could  the  appropriation  of  $924,259  65  have  been  made  immediately  available,  it  would 
have  paid  up  in  full,  principal  and  interest,  the  said  bonds  under  Acts  of  1851  and  1852, 
issued  prior  to  January  1,  1854;  but  owing  to  the  ruling  of  the  honorable  Secretary  of 
War,  to  the  effect  that  the  vouchers  upon  which  said  bonds  were  issued  would  have  to  be 
presented  for  examination  to  the  War  Department  at  Washington,  delay  was  caused,  the 
result  of  which  was,  that  before  the  bondholders  received  their  money  some  two  years  and 
eight  months  elapsed,  and  the  interest  coupons  from  January  1,  1854  (the  date  to  which 
interest  was  paid  on  bonds  redeemed  bv  the  United  States  Government  bearing  date  prior 
to  January  1,  1854),  to  September  1,  1856,  and  amounting  to  $173,322  66,  were  cut  from  the 
said  redeemed  bonds  and  returned  to  the  respective  holders  of  said  bonds  so  presented 
for  redemption ;  which  will  more  fully  and  at  large  appear  by  reference  to  reports  made 
to  the  Governor  of  California,  by  Samuel  B.  Smith  and  J.  W.  Denver,  Commissioners  Cal- 
ifornia War  Debt,  which  reports  bear  date,  respectively,  January  5,  1857,  and  January  30, 
1860.  (See  Appendix  to  Journals  of  Senate  and  Assembly,  nineteenth  session,  pages  10, 
11,  12,  and  13.)  >  f  s          . 

Included  in  the  $638,100  of  the  seven  per  cent  bonds  first  herein  described,  are  bonds 
bearing  date  after  said  first  day  of  January,  1854,  which  were  issued  under  the  said  Act  of 
1852,  and  Acts  amendatory  thereof— a  large  number  of  which,  both  principal  and  interest, 
have  been  paid  in  full  by  the  United  States  Government— said  Government  thus  acknowl- 
edging, to  the  fullest  extent,  the  validity  of  the  issue  of  bonds  of  later  date  than  January 


380 

1,  1854,  and  the  obligation  of  the  General  Government  to  pay  the  same;  all  of  which  will 
more  fully  appear  by  reference  to  the  records  of  the  United  States  War  Department. 

To  sum  up,  the  account  in  tabular  form  is  as  follows : 

Bonds  of  1851  outstanding  (principal) |3,000  00 

Interest  on  same  from  date  to  maturity 3,531  00 

Bonds  under  Act  of  1852  outstanding  (principal) 15,300  00 

Interest  on  same  from  date  of  bond  to  May  2,  1862,  time  of  maturity 8,701  81 

Coupons  outstanding,  cut  from  bonds  of  1851,  redeemed  by  United  States  Gov- 
ernment, said  coupons  being  for  interest  on  said  bonds  from  January  1, 1854, 

to  September  1,1856 63.040  00 

Coupons  outstanding,  cut  from  bonds  of  1852,  redeemed  by  the  United  States 
Government,  said  coupons  being  for  interest  on  said  bonds  from  Januarv  1, 
1854,  to  September  1,  1856 I...  110,282  66 

Total  amount  of  bonds,  principal  and  interest,  outstanding $203,855  47 

To  which  amount  is  to  be  added  the  amount  of  principal  and  interest  of  said  bonds  under 
the  Act  of  May  3,  1852,  paid  by  the  State  of  California,  *  *  *  for  which  the  General 
Government  is  justly  liable  to  the  State. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

W.  B.  C.  BROWN,  Controller. 


EXHIBIT  No.  23. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  153. 

In  the   House   of  Representatives.     December  21,   1885 — Read   twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  reappropriate  the  unexpended  balance  heretofore  appropriated  by  Congress 
for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  the  State  of  California. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  unexpended  balance  of 
eight  thousand  three  hundred  and  sixty-two  dollars  and  sixteen  cents  of 
the  appropriation  made  by  Congress  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and 
fifty-four  (tenth  Statutes,  pages  five  hundred  and  eighty-two  and  five  hun- 
dred and  eighty-three),  and  August  eighteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty- 
six  (United  States  Statutes,  volume  eleven,  page  ninety-one),  for  the  sup- 
pression of  Indian  hostilities  in  the  State  of  California,  and  carried  to  the 
surplus  fund,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  reappropriated ;  and  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  the  said  sum  to 
the  State  of  California  upon  the  surrender  by  said  State  to  said  Secretary 
of  bonds  and  coupons  issued  by  said  State  in  part  payment  of  said  expenses, 
which  have  been  redeemed  and  paid  by  said  State  in  said  sum;  and  the 
aforesaid  sum  shall  be  paid  said  State  upon  her  furnishing  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  satisfactory  evidence  that  bonds  and  coupons  so  issued 
have  been  redeemed,  paid,  and  canceled  to  the  amount  of  said  unexpended 
balance,  under  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Legislature  of  said  State. 


Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  135. 

In  the   House  of  Representatives.    December   21,  1885 — Read   twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 


381 
A   BILL 

For  the  relief  of  the  State  of  California. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America^  in  Congress  assembled^  That  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of 
Congress  approved  June  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-two 
(United  States  Statutes,  volume  twenty-two,  page  one  hundred  and  eleven), 
be  and  the  same  are  hereby  extended  to  all  Indian  war  claims  arising  in 
the  State  of  California  and  upon  the  borders  thereof  between  September 
ninth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty,  and  April  fifteenth,  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-one,  and  for  which  no  provision  has  heretofore  been  enacted  by 
Congress,  or  which  have  not  been  heretofore  presented  to  the  proper  account- 
ing officers  of  the  Treasury. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized 
and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  California  any  sum  found  due  upon 
investigation  for  balances  alleged  to  have  been  paid  and  assumed  and 
remaining  due  and  to  be  paid  by  said  State  on  account  of  Indian  war  bonds, 
coupons",  and  certificates  issued  by  said  State  under  the  Acts  of  her  Legis- 
lature approved  February  fifteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-one.  May 
third,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-two,  and  April  twenty-fifth,  eighteen 
hundred  and  fifty-seven,  respectively,  on  account  of  the  suppression  of 
Indian  hostilities  within  and  upon  the  borders  of  said  State  ;  provided^ 
that  the  sum  so  paid  shall  not  exceed  in  amount  the  sum  of  two  hundred 
and  fifty  thousand  dollars,  which  amount  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any 
money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  and  to  be  paid  to  said 
State  upon  the  surrender  by  her  of  said  bonds,  coupons,  and  certificates  of 
indebtedness,  or  pro  rata  for  any  portion  thereof,  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.  • 

Sec.  3.  That  the  privilege  is  hereby  granted  to  the  State  of  California 
of  presenting  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  any  new  or  additional  evidence 
in  support  of  any  of  its  war  claims  filed  or  to  be  filed;  and  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  reopen,  investigate,  and 
examine  the  same,  in  connection  with  such  evidence  so  presented,  together 
with  any  such  evidence  as  may  be  already  of  record  in  his  department  at 
the  date  of  the  passage  of  this  Act;  and  at  the  earliest  practicable  time  he 
shall  report  to  Congress,  for  final  action,  the  results  of  such  examination 
and  investigation,  and  the  amounts  found  to  be  equitably  due  or  expended 
by  said  State  for  any  of  the  purposes  aforesaid. 


Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  5566. 

In  the   House   of  Representatives.     February   15,   1886 — Read   twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

For  the  relief  of  the  State  of  California. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  provisions  of  the  Act 
of  Congress  approved  March  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one 
(United  States  Statutes,  volume  twelve,  page  one  hundred  and  ninety-nine), 


382 

be  and  the  same  are  hereby  extended  to  all  Indian  war  claims  arising  in 
the  State  of  California,  and  upon  the  borders  thereof,  between  September 
ninth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty,  and  April  fifteenth,  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-one,  and  for  which  no  provision  has  heretofore  been  enacted  by 
Congress,  or  which  have  not  been  heretofore  presented  to  the  proper  account- 
ing officers  of  the  Treasury;  and  the  privilege  is  hereby  granted  to  said 
State  of  presenting  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  any  new,  additional, 
or  corroboratory  evidence  in  support  of  any  of  its  Indian  war  claims  here- 
tofore filed;  and  said  Secretary  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to 
examine  the  same,  in  connection  with  such  evidence  as  may  be  already  of 
record  in  his  Department  at  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this  Act,  and  to 
allow  said  State  whatever  amounts  he  may  find  equitably  due  to  or 
expended  by  said  State  for  any  of  the  aforesaid  purposes;  provided,  that 
any  allowance  for  or  on  account  of  any  or  all  of  the  foregoing  matters 
shall  be  paid  exclusively  out  of  the  unexpended  balance  of  the  appropri- 
ation made  in  said  Act  of  March  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one, 
and  now  lapsed  into  the  Treasury,  and  which  unexpended  balance  is  now 
hereby  re  appropriated. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  author- 
ized and  directed  to  pay  to  the  State  of  California  any  sum  found  by  him, 
upon  investigation,  to  be  due  her  for  balances  heretofore  paid  or  assumed 
and  remaining  due  by  said  State  on  account  of  Indian  war  bonds,  coupons, 
warrants,  and  certificates  of  indebtedness  issued  by  her  under  the  Acts  of 
her  Legislature  approved  February  fifteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty- 
one.  May  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-two,  and  April  twenty-fifth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-seven,  respectively,  for  the  payment  and  defray- 
ing of  the  expenses  incurred  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities,  and 
matters  in  relation  thereto  arising  in  certain  counties  in  said  State,  and 
upon  tlie  borders  thereof;  provided,  that  the  amount  so  paid  shall  not 
exceed  the  sum  of  three  hundred  and  thirty-five  thousand  and  eighty-six 
dollars  and  eighty-eight  cents,  which  sum  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of 
any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  the  same  to  be 
paid  to  said  State,  and  upon  the  condition  only  of  the  surrender  by  her  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  said  bonds,  coupons,  warrants,  and  cer- 
tificates of  indebtedness,  or  payment  to  be  made  pro  rata  for  any  portion 
thereof;  provided  further,  that  the  acceptance  of  the  indemnity  hereby 
provided  shall  operate  as  a  final  and  complete  discharge  and  satisfaction 
of  all  claims  or  matters  hereinbefore  referred  to. 


Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  No.  8732. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     May  10, 1886 — Read  twice,  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  reappropriate  an  unexpended  balance. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  unexpended  balance  of 
eight  thousand  three  hundred  and  fifty-seven  dollars  and  sixteen  cents,  of 
the  appropriation  made  by  Congress  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and 
fifty-four   (tenth   Statutes,  pages   five   hundred  and   eighty-two  and  five 


383 

hundred  and  eighty-three),  and  Acts  amendatory  thereof  and  supple- 
mental thereto,  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  the  State  of  Cal- 
ifornia, and  carried  to  the  surplus  fund,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby 
reappropriated;  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby 
authorized  and  directed  to  pay  said  sum  to  the  State  of  California  upon 
the  surrender  by  said  State  to  said  Secretary  of  bonds  in  said  sum  issued 
in  part  payment  of  said  expenses,  and  which  have  been  heretofore  redeemed 
and  paid  by  her;  and  said  sum  shall  be  paid  said  State  upon  her  furnish- 
ing the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  satisfactory  evidence  that  said  bonds  to 
the  amount  of  said  unexpended  balance,  have  been  redeemed  and  paid  by 
said  State,  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  authority  of  the  Legislature  thereof: 
provided,  that  no  coupons  attached  to  said  bonds  shall  be  paid  said  State 
for  any  interest  whatsoever  accruing  subsequent  to  May  third,  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  sixty-two. 

Forty -eighth  Congress,  second  session.    H.  R.  8149. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     February  2,  1885 — Read  twice,  refer- 
red to  the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  reappropriate  the  unexpended  balance  of  an  appropriation  made  by  former 

Acts  of  Congress. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  sum  of  eight  thousand 
three  hundred  and  sixty-two  dollars  and  sixteen  cents,  being  an  unexpended 
balance  of  an  appropriation  made  by  the  Acts  of  Congress  approved 
August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-four,  and  August  eighteenth, 
eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-six  (United  States  Statutes,  volume  ten,  pages 
five  hundred  and  eighty-two  and  five  hundred  and  eighty-three,  and  volume 
eleven,  page  ninety-one),  "to  refund  to  the  State  of  California  expenses 
incurred  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities,"  which  has  heretofore  lapsed 
and  been  covered  into  the  Treasury,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  reappro- 
priated; and  the  same  shall  be  paid  to  the  State  of  California  upon  her 
surrender  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  the  bonds  and  coupons  aggregat- 
ing said  sums  which  have  been  heretofore  redeemed  and  paid  by  said  State 
on  account  of  the  suppression  of  the  hostilities  named  in  said  Acts;  pro- 
vided, that  the  sums  heretofore  paid  by  the  State  of  California  on  account  of 
said  hostilities  which  have  not  been  heretofore  repaid  by  the  United  States 
shall  be  refunded  to  said  State,  with  interest  at  six  per  centum  per  annum 
from  the  dates  of  such  payment  by  said  State  up  to  the  date  of  the  passage 
of  this  Act,  and  to  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise 
appropriated,  upon  proper  evidence  of  such  payments  by  said  State  being 
furnished  and  filed  by  her  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


EXHIBIT  No.  24. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  E.  5566. 

Statement  in  support  of  H.  R.  No.  5566.  Introduced  February  15,  1886, 
by  Hon.  Barclay  Henley  of  California,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
War  Claims — "A  bill /or  the  relief  of  the  State  of  California.'^ 


384 

First — The  object  of  the  first  part  of  section  one  of  said  bill  is  to  authorize 
an  examination,  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  under  a  carefully  prepared 
statute  which  Congress  has  heretofore  enacted,  such  California  Indian  war 
claims  as  Congress  has  not  as  yet  made  any  provision  for;  and  to  authorize 
said  Secretary  to  receive  and  properly  act  upon  any  new  and  corroboratory 
evidence  in  support  of  any  of  its  Indian  war  claims  heretofore  filed,  and  for 
which  Congress  did  make  provision  in  its  Act  of  March  2, 1861  (U.  S.  Stat, 
vol.  12,  page  199). 

Congress  in  its  Act  of  March  2, 1861  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  12,  p.  199) ,  in  naming 
certain  counties,  and  in  enumerating  certain  years  therein,  did  great  injustice 
thereby  to  the  State  of  California,  by  thus  omitting  from  its  scope  similar 
expenses  incurred  in  other  counties  and  in  other  years  not  named  therein, 
and  on  account  of  Indian  hostilities  that  had  arisen  in  said  State  prior  to 
March  2, 1861,  the  date  of  the  passage  of  said  Act.  This  omission  evidently 
was  the  oversight  at  the  time  either  of  Congress  or  of  California's  delegation 
in  Congress,  but  just  now  it  is  immaterial  which. 

The  purpose  now  sought  to  be  accomplished  in  this  bill  is  to  make  said 
statute  of  March  2,  1861,  sufficiently  general  so  as  to  have  it  apply  equally 
to  all  cases  heretofore  omitted  therefrom,  or  such  as  were  not  provided  for 
or  included  therein. 

Congress  on  June  27, 1882,  passed  a  general  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  States 
of  Texas,  Kansas,  Nebraska,  Colorado,  California,  Oregon,  Nevada,  and  the 
Territories  of  Washington  and  Idaho  for  such  Indian  war  claims  as  arose 
in  said  States  respectively  between  April  15, 1861,  and  the  date  of  the  passage 
of  that  Act.  It  would  seem  that  these  dates  cover  and  include  all  the 
claims  growing  out  of  Indian  hostilities  arising  in  each  and  all  of  said 
States  and  Territories,  except  in  the  case  of  the  State  of  California,  in  which 
particular  State  all  the  Indian  war  claims  arose  prior  to  April  15,  1861; 
and  hence  the  object  of  the  first  section  of  this  bill  is  to  enable  California 
to  present  to  the  Treasury  Department  for  examination  such  claims  of  this 
class  as  arose  in  said  State  between  September  9,  1850  (the  date  of  the 
admission  of  California  into  the  Union),  down  to  April  15,  1861  (the  date 
when  said  Act  of  June  27,  1882,  began  to  operate). 

There  are  a  number  of  Indian  war  claims  of  California  arising  between 
said  two  dates,  to  wit:  September  9, 1850,  and  April  15, 1861,  and  for  which 
there  has  never  as  yet  been  made  any  provision  of  law  by  which  they  could 
be  examined  by  any  tribunal  of  the  United  States,  or  be  reported  upon  to 
Congress,  and  they  are  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Mendocino  Indian  war  claims  of  1859.. 1 $23,839  10 

Washoe  Indian  war  of  1859  and  1860 ...' 26,327  60 

Fro7n  September  9, 1850,  to  April  15, 1861. 

Various  Indian  war  expenses... 33,509  74 

Claims  supported  by  new  evidence. 53,871  25 

Sundry  items  not  enumerated,  but  estimated  not  in  any  event  to  exceed 31,822  55 

1169,470  24 

And  which  aggregate  is  now  the  sum  of  the  unexpended  balance  made  by 
Congress  in  its  said  Act  of  March  8,  1861,  and  lapsed  into  the  Treasury 
and  now  in  the  Surplus  Fund,  and  which  unexpended  balance  said  section 
one  now  re  appropriates.  Equity  and  the  uniform  rule  of  Congress  in  sim- 
ilar matters  would  seem  to  demand  this  legislation  at  this  time.  No  new 
or  additional  appropriation  is  asked  for,  but  only  the  reappropriation  of  the 
unexpended  balance  which  Congress  has  heretofore  appropriated  for  this 
very  class  of  claims,  and  which  remains  in  the  Treasury  Department  unex- 
pended. See  Exhibits  "A,"  "B,"  and  "C,"  hereto  attached  and  made  a 
part  hereof. 


385 

This  matter  has  heretofore  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  Congress,  and 
was  brought  to  its  notice  as  late  as  the  Forty-eighth  Congress,  to  wit:  on 
February  24,  1884,  by  Hon.  W.  S.  Rosecrans,  by  House  Resolution  No.  172 
which  was  by  him  introduced,  read  twice,  and  referred  to  the  honorable 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  and  which  committee,  on  March  18,  1884, 
made  a  favorable  report  thereon,  to  wit:  House  Report  No.  807,  Forty-eighth 
Congress,  first  session. 

This  Resolution,  No.  172,  was  thereafter,  to  wit,  on  May  10,  1884,  called 
up  from  the  calendar  for  consideration  by  Mr.  Rosecrans,  and  upon  the 
single  objection  of  Hon.  W.  S.  Holman  of  Indiana,  it  went  over;  and  was 
never  thereafter  acted  upon  or  could  ever  be  reached  during  the  Forty-eighth 
Congress,  and  for  want  of  time  prior  to  its  adjournment.  Copy  of  said 
House  Resolution,  to  wit,  No.  172,  and  of  House  Report,  to  wit,  No.  807, 
Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session,  are  hereto  attached,  marked  respectively 
"D,"  and  "E,"  and  made  a  part  hereof. 

Second — The  object  of  the  second  part  of  section  one,  said  bill,  is  to 
finally  clean  up  all  matters  relating  to  such  Indian  war  claims  of  the  State 
of  California  as  Congress  has  heretofore  partially  provided  for  by  appro- 
priate legislation. 

The  examination  by  the  Treasury  Department  of  California's  Indian 
war  claims  provided  for  in  the  aforesaid  Act  of  March  2,  1861,  was  made 
and  concluded  on  the  twenty-first  April,  1863,  but  not  brought  to  the  notice 
of  the  State  of  California  until  September  5,  1863,  on  which  date,  instead 
of  paying  California  the  sum  of  $4C 0,000,  as  provided  for  in  said  Act  of 
March  2,  1861,  there  was  paid  to  her  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  only 
the  sum  of  $229,987  67,  and  as  will  more  fully  appear  as  per  exhibit  hereto 
attached  and  made  part  hereof. 

Both  of  these  dates,  to  wit:  April  21,  1863,  and  September  5,  1863,  were 
at  a  time  v/hen  California's  mails  went  by  sea  only,  and  that  via  the  Isth- 
mus of  Panama.  This  was  during  the  war  period,  and  at  a  time  when  the 
officials  of  California  administered  the  public  affairs  of  said  State  in 
wooden  rented  apartments,  the  present  State  Capitol  building  not  being 
then  erected. 

The  State  papers  having  been  moved  into  the  new  Capitol  and  rearranged, 
the  State  officers  of  California,  within  the  last  three  years,  have  discovered 
sundry  written  papers  and  documents  constituting  e^ddence,  in  the  opinion 
of  her  people,  of  value  to  her,  and  which  they  now  desire  to  use  in  support 
of  various  of  their  said  Indian  war  claims  provided  for  in  said  Act  of  March 
2,  1861,  and  not  allowed  for  the  want  of  such  evidence,  and  which  evidence, 
under  the  rulings  of  the  Treasury  Department  (the  claims  having  been 
once  examined  and  an  account  stated,  but  which  California  thinks  was 
only  partial)  can  only  now  be  made  available  or  used  by  authority  or  per- 
mission of  Congress. 

The  necessity  for  this  legislation  is  partially  set  forth  in  a  letter  from  the 
Third  Auditor,  which  original  letter  is  hereto  attached  and  now  made  a 
part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  "F." 

The  desire  of  the  State  of  California  to  have  Congress  adjust  the  matter 
is  set  forth  in  concurrent  resolution  of  the  State  of  California,  copy  of  which 
is  hereto  attached  and  now  made  a  part  hereof,  and  marked  Exhibit  "G." 

The  State  of  California  submits,  considering  all  the  circumstances  in 
these  premises  since  September  5,  1863,  when  said  Treasury  statement  was 
made,  and  the  period  of  war,  and  the  many  and  constant  changes  of 
officials  in  said  State,  and  in  Congress  from  said  State,  and  other  matters 
which  will  readily  suggest  themselves  to  the  mind  of  the  national  legis- 
25"" 


386 

lator,  that  she  has  not  in  any  degree  slept  on  any  of  her  rights,  but  on  the 
contrary,  she  has  at  the  first  proper  opportunity,  made  her  wants  fully 
known  and  filed  her  petition  for  indemnity  with  Congress;  and  she  further 
submits,  that  up  to  this  time.  Congress  has  not  heeded  her  wants  or  her 
petition  to  the  extent  at  least  of  enacting  that  legislation  which  she  submits  is 
adequate  or  sufficient,  and  needed  to  meet  the  condition  of  things  now  herein 
respectfully  presented. 

Third — The  second  section  of  this  bill  is  intended  to  make  full  and  final 
provision  for  all  outstanding  indebtedness  growing  out  of  Indian  hostilities 
in  California,  represented  by  the  particular  bonds,  coupons,  warrants,  and 
certificates  of  indebtedness  issued  in  good  faith  by  said  State  and  in  part 
redeemed  and  paid  by  her  out  of  her  State  Treasury;  and  the  payment  of 
the  balance  of  which  has  been  by  her  assumed  and  now  in  the  hands  of 
bona  fide  holders  for  value,  and  none  of  which  have  as  yet  been  redeemed 
or  paid  by  the  United  States. 

The  subject-matter  of  this  section  of  the  bill  was  partially  considered  by 
the  House  Committee  on  War  Claims  in  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  second 
session,  and  by  it  favorably  reported  January  11,  1884,  by  Hon.  George 
W.  Geddes,  its  Chairman,  copy  of  which  report  is  now  herewith  sub- 
mitted and  made  a  part  hereof  and  marked  "  H."  The  pending  bill  pro- 
vides, therefore,  for  all  claims  of  the  State  of  California,  growing  out  of 
Indian  hostilities  therein  that  have  heretofore  arisen  in  said  State,  and  for 
which  no  adequate  provision  has  heretofore  been  made  by  Congress. 

The  history  of  the  issuance  of  these  bonds,  and  the  reasons  why  they  are 
still  outstanding,  unredeemed  and  unpaid  by  the  United  States,  are  suffi- 
ciently set  forth  in  said  House  Report,  No.  1847,  and  which  now  would  not 
seem  to  demand  any  further  extended  notice. 

Those  of  said  bonds  which  have  heretofore  been  paid  by  the  State  of 
California  have  been  presented  by  her  to  the  Treasury  Department  for 
payment,  but  payment  has  been  refused  for  want  of  authority  of  law  to 
pay  the  same,  and  as  will  fully  appear  from  copy  of  letter  of  the  Third 
Auditor  of  the  Treasury  of  August  18,  1885,  herewith  submitted  and  made 
a  part  hereof  and  marked  "I." 

Congress  has  several  times  recognized  the  validity  of  these  bonds  and 
of  its  obligation  to  pay  the  same,  and  it  has  made  provision  for  the  redemp- 
tion and  payment  thereof,  and  as  will  more  fully  appear  by  reference  to 
the  statutes  as  follows,  to  wit: 

U.  S.  Statutes,  vol.  10,  pages  582-583. 

U.  S.  Statutes,  vol.  11,  page  91. 

U.  S.  Statutes,  vol.  12,  page  104. 

U.  S.  Statutes,  vol.  15,  page  175. 

U.  S.  Statutes,  vol.  21,  pageg  510-511. 

Showing  that  it  has  from  time  to  time  made  provision  for  the  redemp- 
tion thereof,  whenever  heretofore  properly  presented  for  payment  and  as 
shown  by  Exhibits  "  K,"  "  L,"  "  M,"  "  N." 

The  State  of  California  does  not  ask  payment  for  any  interest  in  these 
premises  on  any  moneys  expended  or  advanced  by  her  to  the  United  States, 
but  simply  asks  to  be  reimbursed  and  refunded  the  principal  which  in 
good  faith  she  has  paid  and  assumed  on  account  of  said  bonds,  etc. 

The  second  section  of  this  bill  does  not  authorize  any  payment  to  the 
State  of  California  for  any  bond,  coupon,  warrant,  or  certificate  of  indebt- 
edness except  in  those  cases  where  the  same  shall  have  been  previously  paid  by 
the  State  of  California,  and  then  only  upon  the  surrender  of  same  by  said 
State  to  the  United  States,  with  the  evidence  of  such  payment  thereof  respect- 
ively by  her,  and  not  otherwise. 


387 

The  amount  of  this  indebtedness,  without  interest,  is  now  $335,186  88, 
which  when  paid  will  finally  clean  up  every  claim  of  this  class  of  the 
State  of  California  on  account  of  Indian  hostilities  that  have  arisen  therein 
and  not  heretofore  paid. 

This  bill  might  be  further  amended  by  declaring  therein  that  all  matters 
therein  provided  for  should  be  presented  by  said  State  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  within  two  years  from  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this  bill. 

I  suggest  the  limitation  of  two  years  herein;  and  because,  if  this  bill 
passes  before  the  first  Monday  in  January,  1887  (on  which  day  the  Legis- 
lature of  California  next  meets),  that  State  can  take  action  thereon  as  to 
all  matters  herein  which  she  has  not  heretofore  paid.  But  should  this  bill 
not  pass  before  the  first  Monday  of  January,  1887  (the  Legislature  of  Cali- 
fornia not  meeting  thereafter  until  two  years  therefrom) ,  a  proper  length 
of  time  should  be  given  the  Legislature  of  California  to  make  final  pro- 
vision of  calling  in  this  indebtedness,  meeting  it,  and  presenting  the  same 
to  the  proper  authorities  of  the  United  States,  and  which  proper  time  in 
this  case  is  two  years. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
Agent  for  the  State  of  California. 

Washington  City,  February  22,  1886. 


EXHIBIT   No.  25. 

Forty -ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  5566.    Report  No.  1298. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.  February  15,  1886 — Read  twice,  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  March 
23,  1886 — Reported  with  amendments,  committed  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  (Omit 
the  parts  struck  through  and  insert  the  parts  printed  in  italics.) 

Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

For  the  relief  of  the  State  of  California. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of 
Congress  approved  March  2, 1861  (United  States  Statutes,  volume  12,  page 
199),  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  extended  to  all  Indian  war  claims 
arising  in  the  State  of  California,  and  upon  the  borders  thereof,  between 
September  9,  1850,  and  April  15,  1861,  and  for  which  no  provision  has 
heretofore  been  enacted  by  Congress,  or  which  have  not  been  heretofore 
presented  to  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury;  including  any 
sum,  on  investigation  found  due  her  for  balances  heretofore  paid,  or  assumed 
and  remaining  due,  by  said  State,  and  not  hereinbefore  or  in  said  Act  of  1861 
included,  or  which,  or  the  indebtedness  out  of  which  the  same  arose,  have  not 
been  heretofore  paid  or  adjusted  between  the  said  State  of  California  and  the 
United  States,  on  account  of  Indian  war  bonds,  warrants,  and  certificates  of 
indebtedness  issued  by  her  under  the  Acts  of  her  Legislature,  approved  February 
15,  1851,  May  S,  1852,  and  April  25,  1857,  respectively,  for  the  payment  and 
defraying  of  the  expenses  incurred  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities,  and 
matters  in  relation  thereto,  arising  in  certain  counties  in  said  State,  and  upon 


388 

the  borders  thereof;  the  same  to  be  paid  to  said  State,  and  upon  the  condition 
only  of  the  surrender,  by  her  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  of  said  bondSy 
warrants,  and  certificates  of  indebtedness  or  payment  to  be  made  pro  rata  for 
any  portion  thereof ;  provided  further,  that  the  acceptance  of  the  indemnity 
hereby  provided  shall  operate  as  a  final  and  complete  discharge  and  satisfac- 
tion of  all  claims  or  matters  hereinbefore  referred  to ;  provided  further,  that 
any  allowance  for  or  on  account  of  any  or  all  of  the  foregoing  matters  shall 
be  paid  exclusively  out  of  the  unexpended  balance  of  the  appropriation 
made  in  said  Act  of  March  2,  1861,  and  now  lapsed  into  the  Treasury^ 
and  which  unexpended  balance  is  now  hereby  appropriated. 


Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.    Report  No.  1298. 

THE  STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

March  26,  1866 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on 
the  state  of  the  Union  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Lyman,  from  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 
[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  5566.] 

The  Committee  on  War  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R. 
5566)  for  the  relief  of  the  State  of  California,  have  had  the  same  under 
consideration,  and  make  the  following  report: 

(1)  March  2,  1861,  Congress  passed  an  Act  (12  Statutes  at  Large,  199) 
intending,  no  doubt,  to  enable  that  State  (California)  thereunder  to  adjust 
all  her  claims  against  the  Government  for  expenses  incurred  in  her  various 
Indian  wars.  But  through  some  mistake  or  misapprehension,  it  was  so 
narrow  in  its  terms  that  only  a  portion  of  the  expenses  of  the  Indian 
wars,  which  had  been  borne  by  said  State,  could  be  or  were  adjusted  there- 
under, and  the  first  object  of  this  bill  now  under  consideration  is  to  extend 
the  provisions  of  that  Act  so  as  to  allow  the  adjustment  of  her  claims  for 
Indian  wars  not  in  said  Act  of  1861  provided  for. 

(2)  The  bill  also  asks  that  the  cases  already  filed  and  coming  under  the 
Act  of  1861,  may  be  reopened  and  the  State  be  allowed  to  present  new, 
additional,  or  corroboratory  evidence  in  support  thereof  and  a  new  adjust- 
ment made. 

(3)  It  appears  that  the  State  of  California  has,  under  various  Acts  of 
her  Legislature,  at  different  times,  issued  Indian  war  bonds,  coupons, 
warrants,  and  certificates  of  indebtedness,  some  of  which  she  has  paid 
and  some  of  which  have  been  paid  by  the  United  States  Government,  and 
it  is  now  sought  by  the  provisions  of  this  bill  that  she  be  reimbursed  for 
the  same. 

Your  committee  think  that  the  first  of  the  foregoing  purposes  of  the  bill 
is  just  and  proper,  and  recommend  its  adoption. 

As  to  the  second,  the  committee  think,  inasmuch  as  the  cases  therein 
mentioned  have  been  adjusted  and  disposed  of,  that  it  would  be  bad  policy 
to  again  open  the  same,  and  they  report  adversely  thereon. 

As  to  the  third  proposition,  the  committee  say  that  in  so  far  as  the  mat- 
ters therein  provided  for  are  not  covered  by  the  Act  of  1861,  or  by  this  Act, 
the  same  is  just  and  should  be  adopted,  except  so  far  as  the  same  relates 
to  the  payment  of  interest,  or  interest  coupons,  which  should  be  stricken 
out  in  pursuance  of  the  well  established  policy  of  the  Government. 


889 

The  committee  therefore  recommend  the  passage  of  the  Act  with  the 
following  amendments: 

(1)  Strike  out  of  first  section  that  part  thereof  after  the  word  "  Treasury,"  in  the  twelfth 
line,  down  to  and  including  the  word  "purposes,"  in  the  twenty -first  line;  and, 

(2)  Insert  after  the  word  "Treasury,"  in  the  twelfth  line,  of  the  first  section,  the  follow- 
ing: "Including  any  sum  on  investigation  found  due  her  for  balances  heretofore  paid,  or 
assumed  and  remaining  due  by  said  State,  and  not  hereinbefore  or  in  said  Act  of  1861 
included,  or  which,  or  the  indebtedness  out  of  which  the  same  arose,  have  not  been  here- 
tofore paid  or  adjusted  between  the  said  State  of  California  and  the  United  States,  on 
account  of  Indian  war  bonds,  warrants,  and  certificates  of  indebtedness  issued  by  her 
under  the  Acts  of  Legislature  approved  February  15,  1851,  May  3,  1852,  and  April  25,  1857, 
respectively,  for  the  payment  and  defraying  of  the  expenses  incurred  in  the  suppression 
of  Indian  hostilities,  and  matters  in  relation  thereto  arising  in  certain  counties  in  said 
State,  and  upon  the  borders  thereof;  the  same  to  be  paid  to  said  State,  and  upon  the  con- 
dition only  of  the  surrender  by  her  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  said  bonds,  warrants, 
and  certificates  of  indebtedness,  or  payment  to  be  made  pro  rata  for  anv  portion  thereof; 
provided  further,  that  the  acceptance  of  the  indemnity  hereby  j)rovi(iea  shall  operate 
as  a  final  and  complete  discharge  and  satisfaction  of  all  claims  or  matters  hereinbefore 
referred  to." 

(8)  Insert  after  the  word  "provided,"  in  the  twenty-first  line  of  the  first  section,  the 
word  "further." 
(4)  Strike  out  the  second  section  of  the  bill. 


EXHIBIT  No.  26. 

[Copy.] 

Treasury  Department,  ) 
March  20,  1886.      j 
Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  House  of  Representatives: 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  communication  of  the  nineteenth  instant,  asking 
what  amount  of  the  appropriation  made  by  Congress  by  Act  of  August  5, 
1854,  and  subsequent  Acts,  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  Cal- 
ifornia, remains  unexpended,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  the  Act 
of  August  5,  1854  (10  Stat.,  582),  as  modified  by  Acts  of  August  18,  1856 
(11  Stat.,  91),  and  June  23,  1860  (12  Stat.,  104),  appropriated  $924,259  65 
to  redeem  California  war  bonds  issued  for  expenses  incurred  prior  to  Jan- 
uary 1, 1854.  Of  this  sum  $10,188  63  was  carried  to  the  surplus  fund  June 
30,  1863. 

The  Act  of  July  25,  1868,  reappropriated  the  amount  of  $10,183  63, 
but  only  one  claim  for  $538  11  was  paid  therefrom,  and  the  remainder, 
$9,645  52,  was  carried  to  the  surplus  fund*  on  July  1,  1874. 

The  Act  of  March  3, 1881  (21  Stat.,  510),  reappropriated  a  sufficient  sum 
to  pay  four  bonds  described  in  said  Act,  and  for  that  purpose  the  sum  of 
$1,288  36  was  reappropriated. 

The  balance  remaining  in  the  surplus  fund  can  not  be  used  for  further 
payments  on  this  account  without  additional  authority  from  Congress. 

Respectfully  vours, 

W.  E.  SMITH, 

Assistant  Secretary. 
[Copy.] 

Treasury  Department,  Third  Auditor's  Office,       [ 
Washington,  D.  C,  May  5,  1886.  ) 

Hon.  C.  F.  Fairchild,  Acting  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Sir:  I  return  the  communication  addressed  you  by  Hon.  Barclay  Hen- 
ley, M.  C,  on  fourth  instant,  relative  to  the  California  war  bonds,  for  the 
payment  of  which  provision  was  made  by  the  Act  of  August  5,  1854,  as 
amended  by  Acts  of  August  18,  1856,  and  June  23,  1860. 


390 

As  there  yet  remains  unpaid  bonds  to  a  greater  amount  than  the  balance 
in  the  surplus  fund  ($8,357  16),  I  see  no  reason  why  such  balance  should 
not  be  made  available  by  reappropriation.  It  would,  however,  be  unjust 
to  make  the  reappropriation  applicable  specially  to  the  bonds  redeemed 
and  now  held  by  the  State,  as  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  some 
bonds  are  held  by  private  parties.  All  holders,  whether  the  State  or  indi- 
viduals, should  stand  upon  a  common  footing,  applying  to  all  the  natural 
rule  of  payment  as  the  bonds  shall  be  presented,  so  long  as  the  fund  holds 
out. 

Provision  should  be  made  fixing  the  date  to  which  interest  should  be 
allowed.  I  suppose  the  fact  to  be  that  the  exhibit  first  submitted  by  the 
State  to  Congress  computed  the  aggregate  of  the  then  ascertained  expenses, 
inclusive  of  interest  to  January  1,  18o4i  to  be  $924,259  65,  and  that  this 
was  the  basis  upon  which  the  appropriation  of  that  sum,  as  a  maximum, 
was  made  by  the  Act  of  August  5,  1854.     (10  Statutes,  5823.) 

At  all  events,  the  California  Commissioners  referred  to  in  Act  of  Con- 
gress of  August  18,  1856  (11  Statutes,  91),  seem  to  have  known  that  said 
sum  would  suffice  to  pay  the  bonds  with  interest  only  to  January  1,  1854; 
and  in  all  their  awards  they  limited  the  allowance  of  interest  to  that  date. 
Hence  the  vast  majority  of  the  bonds  were  paid  upon  that  basis.  Under 
the  peculiar  wording  of  the  Act  of  June  23,  1860,  interest  upon  the  few 
bonds  paid  under  it  was  allowed  to  July  1,  1860. 

By  Act  of  August,  1854,  Congress  proffered  to  the  State  reimbursement  of 
such  expenses  as  it  should  prove  to  have  been  incurred,  not  exceeding  the 
maximum  named.  But,  the  State  being  dissatisfied  with  this  proposition. 
Congress,  two  years  later,  at  the  instance  of  the  State,  by  the  Act  of  August, 
1856,  offered  to  redeem  the  bonds  issued  by  the  State,  and  made  the  fund 
before  appropriated  applicable  to  that  purpose.  The  opportunity  was  there- 
fore given  to  all  bondholders  to  present  their  bonds  at  once.  Although 
there  was  no  specific  limitation  as  to  the  time  in  which  bonds  should  be 
presented,  I  think  it  was  not  contemplated  by  the  Act  of  1856  to  offer  to  a 
bondholder  the  privilege  of  holding  his  bond  indefinitely,  up  to  the  expira- 
tion of  its  terms,  and  drawing  interest  thereon  from  the  United  States  for 
the  period  during  which  he  might  desire  to  hold  the  same  as  a  safe  and 
profitable  investment;  and  the  appropriation  would  have  fallen  far  short  of 
payment  upon  that  basis. 

In  my  judgment,  interest  ought  not  to  be  allowed  for  any  period  after  the 
United  States  had  offered  to  redeem  the  bonds  and  had  provided  a  fund  for 
that  purpose. 

Very  respectfully, 

JNO.  S.  WILLIAMS, 

Auditor. 

Treasury  Department,  ) 
June  22,  1886.      | 
Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  House  of  Representatives: 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  communication  of  the  nineteenth  instant,  requesting 
copies  of  letters  heretofore  sent  to  you  in  regard  to  the  unexpended  balance 
of  appropriations  made  for  suppressing  Indian  hostilities  in  California,  I 
have  the  honor  to  inclose  copy  of  Department's  letter  of  March  20,  1886, 
and  of  the  Third  Auditor's  letter  of  May  5,  1886. 

Respectfully  yours, 

A¥.  E.  SMITH, 

Assistant  Secretary. 


391 

[Copy.] 

Treasury  Department,  July  2,  1886. 

Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  House  of  Representatives: 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  communication  of  yesterday's  date,  I  have  the 
honor  to  inform  you  that  of  the  $400,000  appropriated  by  the  Act  of  March 
2,  1861  (12  Stat.  p.  199),  for  payment  to  the  State  of  California  for  ex- 
penses incurred  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities  in  the  years  1854-55-56- 
58-59,  the  sum  of  $169,470  24  remained  unexpended  and  was  carried  to 
the  Surplus  Fund  on  the  thirtieth  of  June,  1864. 

Respectfully  yours, 

C.  S.  FAIRCHILD, 
Acting  Secretary. 


House  of  Representatives  United  States,         | 
Washington,  D.  C,  March  31,  1886.  S 

Hon.  Samuel  J.  Randall,  Chairman  Committee  on  Appropriation^^  and 
Chairman  Sub-Committee  in  charge  of  the  Sundry  Civil  Appropriation 
Bill: 

My  Dear  Sir:  First — I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  you  herewith  an  item 
which  I  respectfully  ask  may  be  included  by  you  in  the  "  Sundry  Civil 
Appropriation  Bill "  when  reported  to  the  House  from  your  honorable  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriation. 

Second — Also,  find  herewith  an  original  letter  dated  March  20,  1886,  from 
the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  setting  forth  that  the  sum  named 
in  my  said  inclosed  item,  to  wit,  $8,357  16,  is  now  an  unexpended  balance 
in  the  Treasury,  but  which  balance  cannot  be  made  available  for  the  benefit 
of  the  State  of  California  without  additional  authority  from  or  legislation  by 
Congress.  Hence,  this  my  request  as  herein  made,  and  the  legal  necessity 
thereof  at  this  time. 

During  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  I  made  a  request  similar  to  the  fore- 
going, but  it  seems  to  have  been  inadvertently  overlooked. 

I  shall  be  gratified,  therefore,  if  you  and  your  Committee  on  Appropriation 
will  be  kind  enough  to  give  this  matter  special  consideration  at  this  time 
by  having  this  provision  inserted  in  your  "  Sundry  Civil  Appropriation 
Bill,"  and  oblige, 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

BARCLAY  HENLEY, 
M.  C.  from  California. 

House  of  Repkesentatives  United  States,         > 
Washington,  D.  C,  March  31,  1886.  j 

"That  the  unexpended  bahmceof  eight  thousand  three  hundred  and  fifty-seven  dollars 
and  sixteen  cents  of  the  appropriation  made  by  Congress  July  25, 1868  (U.  S.  Stats.,  vol.  15, 
p.  175),  to  refund  to  the  State  of  California  expenses  incurred  in  suppressing  Indian  hos- 
tilities," and  carried  to  the  Surplus  Fund,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby >eappropriated;  and 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  said  sum  to  the 
State  of  California  upon  the  surrender  by  her  to  said  Secretary  of  the  bonds  issued  by  her 
in  payment  of  said  expenses,  and  which  bonds  have  been  heretofore  redeemed  and  paid 
by  sa'id  State  in  said  sum  and  not  heretofore  paid  by  the  United  States,  and  the  aforesaid 
sum  shall  be  paid  to  said  State  upon  her  furnishing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasurj^  satis- 
factory evidence  that  said  bonds  so  issued  have  been  redeemed,  paid,  and  canceled  by 
said  State,  under  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Legislature  thereof,  to  the  extent  of  saici 
unexpended  balance. 


892 

House  of  Representatives  United  States,        | 
Washington,  D.  C,  May  7,  1886.  j 

Hon.  Samuel  J.  Randall,  Chairman  Committee  on  Appropriations,  U.  S. 
House  of  Representatives : 

Sir:  Inclosed  herewith  please  find  a  memorandum,  which  I  ask  may, 
by  your  honorable  Committee  on  Appropriations,  be  inserted  as  an  item  in 
the  Sundry  Civil  Appropriation  Bill,  Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session. 
In  support  whereof  please  find  the  letter  of  the  Treasury  Department  of 
May  6,  1886,  inclosing  the  report  of  the  honorable  Third  Auditor  of  May 
5,  1886,  recommending  that  said  sum  of  $8,357  16  be  reappropriated. 

Respectfully, 

BARCLAY  HENLEY, 
M.  C.  from  California. 


House  of  Representatives  United  States,         ( 
Washington,  D.  C,  June  5,  1886.  ) 

Hon.  Samuel  J.  Randall,  Chairman  Committee  on  Appropriations: 

Sir:  I  invite  your  attention  to  the  following  statement  of  facts: 

First — There  is  now  in  the  Treasury,  heretofore  appropriated  by  Con- 
gress, an  unexpended  balance  of  $8,357  16,  and  which  having  been  car- 
ried into  the  Surplus  Fund,  has  to  be  reappropriated  in  order  to  be  avail- 
able for  the  State  of  California.  (See  Exhibits  Nos.  1  and  2  herewith.) 
This  information  you  will  perceive  is  contained  in  a  report  to  me  by  the 
honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  under  date  of  March  20,  1886,  Mav 
6,  1886,  and  May  5,  1886. 

Second — I  thereupon  submitted  said  information  to  your  honorable  Com- 
mittee, with  request  that  there  be  inserted  in  the  "  Sundry  Civil  Appropri- 
ation Bill"  an  item  to  reappropriate  said  $8,357  16  for  the  purposes  for 
which  the  original  appropriation  was  made  by  Congress. 

Third — Upon  doing  this  I  was  given  to  understand  that  such  informa- 
tion should  reach  your  committee  through  the  Speaker  of  the  House. 

Fourth — W^herefore  on  tenth  May,  1886,  I,  in  the  House,  introduced  a 
resolution  calling  formally  again  upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for 
this  information,  so  that  it  and  the  reply  thereto  should  reach  your  com- 
mittee through  the  Speaker. 

Fifth — The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  War  Claim  Committee,  and  I 
learn  that  upon  that  committee's  communicating  with  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment, it  is.  informed  that  the  information  sought  by  said  resolution  had 
already  been  communicated  to  me,  and  that  said  War  Claim  Committee 
seems  to  be  at  a  loss  to  know  why  this  peculiar  (red  tape  riding  around 
Robin  Hood's  barn)  proceeding  is  necessary — a  matter  which  I  myself 
think  should  not  make  any  rules  of  the  House,  or  of  any  committees,  be 
rendered  necessary.  The  one  object  being  is,  that  of  getting  before  your 
honorable  Committee  on  Appropriations  the  official  facts,  as  contained  in 
the  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  twentieth  March,  1886,  and 
fifth  and  sixth  of  May,  1886. 

Wherefore  I  now  very  respectfully  ask  your  honorable  Committee  to 
take  cognizance  of  said  report  of  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
and  that  you  may  be  pleased  to  have  inserted  in  the  Sundry  Civil  Ap- 
propriation Bill  an  item  as  follows,  to  wit: 


393 

That  the  unexpended  balance  of  $8,357  16  of  the  appropriation  made  by  Congress 
August  5.  1854  (10  Statutes,  582),  as  supplemented  by  Acts  of  August  18,  1856  (11  Statutes, 
91),  and  June  23,  1860  (12  Statutes,  104),  and  July  25,  1868  (15  Statutes,  175),  and  March  3, 
1881  (21  Statutes,  510),  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  reappropriated ;  and  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  said  sum  to  the  State  of  California, 
upon  the  surrender  by  her  to  said  Secretary  of  bonds  issued  by  her  in  payment  of  the 
expenses  referred  to  in  said  Acts,  which  have  been  heretofore  redeemed  and  paid  by  said 
State  in  said  sum,  and  not  heretofore  paid  by  the  United  States ;  and  the  aforesaid  sum 
shall  be  paid  said  State  upon  her  furnishing  said  Secretary  with  satisfactory  evidence 
that  bonds  so  issued  have  been  redeemed,  paid,  and  canceled  by  said  State,  imder  and  by 
the  authority  of  the  Legislature  thereof,  to  the  extent  of  said  unexpended  balance;  pro- 
vided, that  no  payment  be  made  for  an}^  sum  earned  by  said  bonds  after  May  3,  1862. 

In  view  of  all  the  foregoing,  and  the  equity  now  due  to  the  State  of 
California  in  these  premises,  I  now  ask  that  this  matter  have  your  careful 
consideration,  and  that  of  your  honorable  Committee  on  Appropriations, 
at  this  time. 

Respectfully, 

BARCLAY  HENLEY, 
M.  C.  from  California. 


EXHIBIT  No.  27. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  5543. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  April  6, 1886 — Referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

AMENDMENT 

Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Stanford  to  the  bill  (H.  R.  5543)  making 
appropriations  for  the  current  and  contingent  expenses  of  the  Indian  Depart- 
ment, and  for  fulfilling  treaty  stipulations  with  various  Indian  tribes,  for 
the  year  ending  June  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-seven,  and  for 
other  purposes,  viz.:     Insert  the  following: 

That  the  unexpended  balance  of  eight  thousand  three  hundred  and  fifty- 
seven  dollars  and  sixteen  cents  of  the  appropriation  made  by  Congress 
July  twenty-fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-eight  (United  States  Statutes, 
volume  fifteen,  page  one  hundred  and  seventy-five),  "  to  refund  to  the  State 
of  California  expenses  incurred  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities,"  and 
carried  to  the  surplus  fund,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  reappropriated; 
and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay 
said  sum  to  the  State  of  California  upon  the  surrender  by  her  to  said  Sec- 
retary of  the  bonds  issued  by  her  in  payment  of  said  expenses,  and  which 
bonds  have  been  heretofore  redeemed  and  paid  by  said  State  in  said  sum, 
and  not  heretofore  paid  by  the  United  States ;  and  the  aforesaid  sum  shall 
be  paid  to  said  State  upon  her  furnishing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
satisfactory  evidence  that  said  bonds  so  issued  have  been  redeemed,  paid, 
and  canceled  by  said  State,  under  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Legislature 
thereof,  to  the  extent  of  said  unexpended  balance. 


394 
EXHIBIT  No.  28. 

Before  the  Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session, 

STATEMENT  IN  SUPPORT  OF  THE  AMENDMENT  TO  THE 
DEFICIENCY  APPROPRIATION  BILL  AS  PROPOSED  BY  SEN- 
ATOR HEARST  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Said  amendment  being  as  follows,  to  wit:  Forty-ninth  Congress,  first 
session.     H.  R.  9726. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  July  3,  1886 — Referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Appropriations,  and  ordered  printed. 

Amendment  intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Hearst  to  the  bill  (H.  R. 
9726)  making  appropriations  to  supply  deficiencies  in  the  appropriations 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-six, 
and  for  prior  years,  and  for  other  purposes,  viz.:  Insert  the  following: 

That  so  much  of  the  unexpended  balances  of  the  appropriations  made 
by  Congress  under  the  Acts  approved  August  fifth,  eighteen  hundred  and 
fifty-four  (tenth  Statutes,  page  five  hundred  and  eighty-two),  and  August 
eighteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-six  (eleventh  Statutes,  page  ninety- 
one),  and  March  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one  (twelfth  Statutes, 
page  one  hundred  and  ninety-nine),  as  may  be  necessary  therefor,  be  and 
the  same  are  hereby  reappropriated ;  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is 
hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  said  sums  to  the  State  of  California 
upon  the  surrender  by  her  to  said  Secretary  of  bonds  issued  by  her  in 
payment  of  expenses  incurred  by  her  in  thQ  suppression  of  Indian  hostili- 
ties in  said  State  prior  to  March  second,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one, 
and  which  bonds  have  been  heretofore  redeemed  and  paid  by  said  State  in 
said  sums,  and  not  heretofore  paid  or  redeemed  by  the  United  States;  and 
the  aforesaid  sums  shall  be  paid  to  said  State  only  upon  the  condition  of 
furnishing  said  Secretary  with  evidence  satisfactory  to  him  that  the  bonds 
so  issued  have  been  redeemed,  paid,  and  canceled  by  the  State  officers  of 
said  State  under  and  by  authority  of  the  Legislature  thereof,  and  to  the 
extent  of  said  unexpended  and  reappropriated  balances;  provided,  hovjever, 
that  no  payment  shall  be  made  by  said  Secretary  to  said  State  for  any 
sums  earned  by  said  bonds  after  May  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- 
two. 

The  object  of  this  amendment  is  to  reimburse  the  State  of  California  in 
the  sum  of  $53,234  90  for  and  on  account  of  certain  California  Indian  war 
bonds,  aggregating  that  sum,  which  were  issued  by  said  State  in  payment 
of  expenses  incurred  by  her  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  therein 
prior  to  March  2,  1861,  and  which  bonds  subsequent  thereto  were  paid  and 
redeemed  and  canceled  by  the  proper  State  officers  of  said  State  acting 
therein  under  the  authority  of  the  Legislature  thereof,  and  which  bonds 
have  never  heretofore  been  paid  or  redeemed  by  the  United  States;  the 
same  to  be  paid  out  of  the  unexpended  balances  of  the  appropriations 
heretofore  made  by  Congress,  and  which  balances  have  lapsed  and  been 
heretofore  carried  into  the  surplus  fund. 

Of  the  appropriations  made  by  Congress  in  its  Act  of  August  5,  1854  (10 
Statutes,  page  582),  and  the  same  repeated  in  its  Act  of  August  18,  1856, 
(11  Statutes,  page  91),  there  now  remains  unexpended  and  available  for 
this  purpose,  but  carried  into  the  surplus  fund,  and  which  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  states  cannot  be  used  for  further  payment  on  this  account 
without  additional  authority  from  Congress,  the  sum^ 


395 

As  per  Exhibit  "A"  herewith,  of $8,357  16 

As  per  Exhibit  "B"  herewith,  of 169,470  24 

Making  a  total  of  said  unexpended  balances  of |177,827  40 

And  of  which  amount  it  is  now  proposed  by  said  amendment  to  reappropriate 
the  sum  of '_ $53,234  90 

Exhibit  A. 

Treasury  Department,  March  20, 1886. 
Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  House  of  Representatives: 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  communication  of  the  nineteenth  instant,  asking  what  amount  of 
the  appropriation  made  by  Congress  by  Act  of  August  5,  1854,  and  subsequent  Acts  for 
the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  California,  remains  unexpended,  I  have  the  honor 
to  inform  you  that  the  Act  of  August  5,  1854  (10  Stat.,  582),  as  modified  by  Acts  of  August 
18,  1856  (11  Stat.,  91),  and  June  23,  1860  (12  Stat.,  104),  appropriated  $924,259  65  to  redeem 
California  war  bonds  issued  for  expenses  incurred  prior  to  January  1,  1854.  Of  this  sum 
$10,188  63  was  carried  to  the  surplus  fund  June  30,  1863. 

The  Act  of  July  25,  1868,  reappropriated  the  amount  of  $10,183  63,  but  only  one  claim 
for  $538  11  was  paid  therefrom,  and  the  remainder— $9,645  52— was  carried  to' the  surplus 
fund  on  July  1,  1874. 

The  Act  of  March  3, 1881  (21  Stat,  510),  reappropriated  a  sufficient  sum  to  pay  four  bonds 
described  in  said  Act,  and  for  that  purpose  the  sum  of  $1,288  36  was  reappropriated. 

The  balance  remaining  in  the  surplus  fund  cannot  be  used  for  further  payments  on  this 
account  without  additional  authority  from  Congress. 
■  Respectfully  yours, 

W.  E.  SMITH,  Assistant  Secretary. 

Exhibit  B. 

Treasury  Department,  July  2,  1886. 
Hon.  Barclay  Henley,  House  of  Representatives: 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  communication  of  yesterday's  date,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform 
you  that  of  the  $400,000  appropriated  by  the  Act  of  March  3, 1861  (12  Stat.,  p.  199),  for  pay- 
ment to  the  State  of  California  for  expenses  incurred  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities  in 
the  years  1854,  1855,  185(5, 1858,  and  1859,  the  sum  of  $169,470  24  remained  unexpended,  and 
was  carried  to  the  surplus  fund  on  the  thirtieth  of  June,  1864. 
Respectfully  yours, 

C.  S.  FAIRCHILD,  Acting  Secretary. 

Of  the  Indian  war  bonds  issued  by  the  State  of  Cahfornia  under  its  Act  of  Feb- 
ruary 15, 1851,  the  sum  as  paid  by  said  State  is $2,190  00 

And  of  the  Indian  war  bonds  issued  by  the  State  of  California  under  its  Act  of 

May  3,  1852,  the  sum  as  paid  by  said  State  is 36,580  48 

And  of  the  Indian  war  bonds  issued  by  the  State  of  California  under  its  Act  of 
April  25,  1857,  the  sum  as  paid  by  said  State  is 14,464  42 

Making,  as  aforesaid,  a  total  aggregate  of $53,234  90 

All  of  these  bonds  were  redeemed  and  paid  and  canceled  by  the  State  of 
California  subsequent  to  the  dates  when  said  unexpended  balances  lapsed 
into  the  Treasury,  and  none  of  same  were  in  her  possession  prior  to  said 
date,  after  the  issue  thereof. 

These  bonds  from  time  to  time  have  been  heretofore  redeemed  and  paid 
by  the  State  of  California,  under  special  Acts  of  her  Legislature,  as  the 
same  were  presented  to  her  by  the  holders  thereof,  said  State  relying,  as  she 
did  then  and  does  now,  upon" the  good  faith  of  the  United  States  to  redeem 
and  pay  the  same  upon  presentation  by  her,  and  as  others  have  been  here- 
tofore paid  by  the  United  States  whenever  presented. 

The  United  States  has  sustained  no  loss  whatever  by  virtue  of  the  non- 
presentation  thereof  prior  to  this  date,  and  whatever  loss  there  has  been 
sustained  in  these  premises,  and  by  virtue  of  a  presentation  thereof  only  at 
this  date  has  been  that  of  the  State  of  California,  and  not  otherwise. 

Wherefore,  in  view  of  the  foregoing  facts,  it  is  respectfully  suggested  and 
now  submitted  that  said  amendment  might  be  appropriately  changed  so  as 
to  read  as  follows,  to  wit: 

That  the  sum  of  $8,357  16,  being  the  unexpended  balance  of  the  appro- 


396 

priation  made  by  Congress,  under  the  Acts  approved  August  5,  1854  (10 
Stat.  p.  582),  and  August  18,  1856  (11  Stat.  p.  91),  and  the  sum  of  .$44,- 
877  74  of  the  unexpended  balance  of  the  appropriation  made  by  Congress 
under  the  Act  approved  March  2,  1861  (12  Stat.  p.  199),  be  and  the  same 
are  hereby  reappropriated ;  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  hereby 
authorized  and  directed  to  pay  said  sums  to  the  State  of  Cahfornia,  upon 
the  surrender  by  her  to  said  Secretary,  of  bonds  issued  by  her  in  payment 
of  expenses  incurred  by  her  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  said 
State  prior  to  March  2,  1861.  and  which  bonds  have  been  heretofore 
redeemed  and  paid  by  said  State  in  said  sums,  and  not  heretofore  paid  or 
redeemed  by  the  United  States;  and  the  aforesaid  sums  shall  be  paid  to 
said  State  only  upon  the  condition  of  furnishing  said  Secretary  with  evi- 
dence satisfactory  to  him,  that  bonds  so  issued  have  been  redeemed,  paid, 
and  canceled  by  the  State  officers  of  said  State  under  and  by  the  author- 
ity of  the  Legislature  thereof,  to  the  extent  of  said  unexpended  and  reap- 
propriated balances;  provided,  however,  that  no  payment  shall  be  made  by 
said  Secretary  to  said  State  for  any  sums  earned  by  said  bonds  after  May 
3,  1862. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
Agent  and  Attorney  for  the  State  of  California. 


EXHIBIT  No    29. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  5209. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.    February  8, 1886 — Read  twice,  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

In  relation,  to  Indian  depredations. 

Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Court  of  Claims  shall 
have  power  to  hear  and  determine  all  claims  for  depredations  committed 
by  Indians  arising  under  section  seventeen  of  the  Act  of  Congress  of  June 
thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-four,  entitled  "An  Act  to  regulate 
trade  and  intercourse  with  the  Indian  tribes  and  to  preserve  peace  on  the 
frontiers." 

Sec.  2.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  or  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate, 
or  the  Clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  as  the  case  may  be,  shall 
transmit  to  the  Court  of  Claims  for  adjudication  all  claims  heretofore  pre- 
sented to  the  Interior  Department  or  to  Congress,  with  all  vouchers,  papers, 
proofs,  and  documents  pertaining  thereto,  and  the  same  shall  be  there  pro- 
ceeded in  under  such  rules  as  said  Court  may  adopt. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  Attorney-General,  or  his  assistants  under  his  direc- 
tion, shall  appear  therein  to  defend  the  United  States  and  the  Indians  in 
all  such  actions,  with  the  same  power  to  interpose  counter-claims,  offsets, 
defenses  for  fraud  and  other  defenses  as  now  given  in  said  Court. 

Sec.  4.  That  the  same  right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  existing  in  other  cases  in  the  Court  of  Claims  shall  exist  in 
the  cases  considered  under  this  Act. 


397 

Sec.  5.  That  no  person  shall  be  excluded  from  testifying  in  cases  under 
this  Act  on  account  of  being  a  party  or  interested;  and  the  affidavits  and 
other  evidence  heretofore  filed  in  Congress  or  in  the  departments  in  such 
cases  may  be  considered  by  said  Court,  and  such  weight  shall  be  given  to 
such  evidence  as  the  Court  may  deem  proper. 

Sec.  6.  That  in  all  cases  where  the  depredation  was  committed  by  a 
tribe  of  Indians,  or  by  members  of  a  tribe,  to  which  annuities  are  due 
from  the  United  States,  the  Court  of  Claims  shall  make  said  fact  a  part  of 
their  judgment. 

Sec.  7.  That  in  all  cases  where  the  Court  shall  find  in  accordance  with 
the  preceding  section,  that  annuities  are  due,  the  amount  of  the  judgments 
shall  be  deducted  and  paid  from  said  annuities;  and  if  there  be  no 
annuities  due,  then  the  amount  of  the  judgments  shall  be  charged  against 
the  tribe  of  Indians  by  which,  or  by  members  of  which,  the  depredations 
were  committed,  and  the  same  shall  be  deducted  and  paid  from  any  funds 
which  may  be  or  become  due  to  said  Indians  from  the  sale  of  their  lands 
or  from  any  appropriation  that  may  be  made  for  the  benefit  of  such  tribe, 
other  than  appropriations  for  their  current  and  necessary  subsistence,  sup- 
port, and  education;  and  if  there  be  no  such  fund  or  appropriation  avail- 
able, then  the  same  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  public  Treasury. 

Sec.  8.  That  in  all  said  claims  arising  six  years  or  more  prior  to  the 
passage  of  this  Act,  whether  heretofore  presented  or  not,  a  petition  shall  be 
presented  to  the  Court  within  three  years  from  the  date  hereof,  and  not 
thereafter;  and  in  all  such  claims  arising  less  than  six  years  prior  to  the 
date  hereof,  or  which  may  hereafter  arise,  a  petition  shall  be  so  presented 
within  six  years  from  the  date  of  such  depredation,  and  not  thereafter; 
and  all  claims  for  Indian  depredations  not  so  presented  within  the  time 
limited  by  this  section  shall  be  forever  barred,  and  shall  not  be  considered 
by  any  department  of  the  Government. 


Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.     H.  R.  8080. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     April  19,  1886 — Read  twice,  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

Making  an  appropriation  for  the  purpose  of  paying  Indian  depredation 
claims  which  have  been  audited  and  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Inte- 
rior and  reported  to  Congress. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  there  be  and  hereby  is 
appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropri- 
ated, the  sum  of  five  millions  of  dollars,  or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  nec- 
essary to  pay  the  Indian  depredation  claims  which  have  been  heretofore 
filed  and  investigated  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
and  reported  by  him  to  Congress,  in  pursuance  of  the  laws  of  Congress, 
and  in  accordance  with  the  rules  and  regulations  prescribed  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior. 


398 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  8082. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     April  19,  1886 — Read  twice,  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A   BILL 

In  relation  to  Indian  depredations. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Court  of  Claims  shall 
have  power  to  hear  and  determine  all  claims  for  depredations  committed 
by  Indians  embraced  within  the  terms  of  section  tw^enty-one  hundred  and 
fifty-six  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  whether  the  said  claims  have  been  hereto- 
fore presented  to  the  Interior  Department  or  Congress  or  not. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  or  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate, 
or  the  Clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  as  the  case  may  be,  shall, 
immediately  after  the  passage  of  this  Act,  transmit  to  the  Court  of  Claims 
for  adjudication  all  claims  for  Indian  depredations  heretofore  presented  to 
the  Interior  Department  or  to  Congress,  with  all  vouchers,  papers,  proofs, 
and  documents  pertaining  thereto,  and  upon  the  presentation  of  a  petition 
on  behalf  of  any  claimant  within  the  time  hereinafter  limited,  the  same 
shall  be  there  proceeded  in  under  such  rules  as  said  Court  may  adopt. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  Attorney-General,  or  his  assistants  under  his  direction, 
shall  appear  therein  to  defend  the  United  States  and  the  Indians  in  all 
such  actions,  with  the  same  power  to  interpose  counter-claims,  oft'sets, 
defenses  for  fraud,  and  other  defenses  as  now  given  in  said  Court. 

Sec.  4.  That  the  same  right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  existing  in  other  cases  in  the  Court  of  Claims  shall  exist  in 
the  cases  considered  under  this  Act. 

Sec.  5.  That  no  person  shall  be  excluded  from  testifying  in  cases  under 
this  Act  on  account  of  being  a  party  oy  interested;  and  the  affidavits 
and  other  evidence  heretofore  filed  in  Congress  or  in  the  departments  in 
such  cases  may  be  considered  by  said  Court,  and  such  weight  shall  be 
given  to  such  evidence  as  the  Court  may  deem  proper. 

Sec.  6.  That  the  Court  of  Claims  shall,  in  every  judgment  rendered 
under  this  Act,  find  the  tribe  of  Indians  by  which,  or  by  members  of  which, 
the  depredation  was  committed,  and  whether  annuities  or  other  funds  are 
due  to  said  tribe  from  the  United  States. 

Sec.  7.  That  the  amount  of  any  judgment  so  rendered  shall  be  charged 
against  the  tribes  by  which,  or  by  members  of  which,  the  Court  shall  find 
that  the  depredation  was  committed,  and  shall  be  deducted  and  paid  in 
the  following  manner:  First,  from  any  annuities  due  said  tribe  from  the 
United  States;  second,  if  no  annuities  are  due  or  available,  from  any  other 
funds  due  said  tribe  from  the  United  States,  arising  from  the  sale  of  their 
lands  or  otherwise;  third,  if  no  such  funds  are  due  or  available,  from  any 
appropriations  for  the  benefit  of  said  tribe,  other  than  appropriations  for 
their  current  and  necessary  support,  subsistence,  and  education;  and,  fourth, 
if  no  such  annuity,  fund,  or  appropriation  is  due  or  available,  the  amount 
of  the  judgment  shall  be  paid  from  the  public  Treasury;  provided,  that 
any  amount  so  paid  from  the  public  Treasury  shall  remain  a  charge  against 
such  tribe,  and  shall  be  deducted  from  any  annuity,  fund,  or  appropriation 
hereinbefore  designated  which  may  hereafter  become  due  from  the  United 
States  to  such  tribe. 


399 

Sec.  8.  That  in  all  said  claims  which  have  arisen  prior  to  the  passage 
of  this  Act,  whether  heretofore  presented  or  not,  a  petition  on  behalf  of  the 
claimant  shall  be  presented  to  the  Court  within  three  years  from  the  date 
hereof,  and  not  thereafter;  and  in  all  such  claims  arising  less  than  six  years 
prior  to  the  date  hereof,  or  which  may  hereafter  arise,  such  petition  shall 
be  so  presented  within  six  years  from  the  date  of  such  depredation,  and  not 
thereafter;  and  all  claims  for  Indian  depredations  not  so  presented  within 
the  time  limited  by  this  section  shall  be  forever  barred,  and  shall  not  be 
considered  by  any  department  of  the  Government. 


Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  No.  9729. 
[Report  No.  3117.] 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.  June  30,  1886 — Read  twice,  committed 
to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and 
ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Hailey,  from  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  reported  the  follow- 
ing bill  as  a  substitute  for  H.  R.  No.  7849: 

A  BILL 

To  establish  a  Board  of  Commissioners  to  examine,  adjust,  and  report  on  all 
claims  arising  out  of  Indian  treaties  and,  depredations  committed  by  In- 
dians, and  for  other  purposes. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  President  of  the  United 
States  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  appoint,  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate,  three  Commissioners,  who  shall  each  hold  office 
until  the  completion  of  the  work  hereinafter  assigned  to  them,  unless  sooner 
removed  by  the  President.  Said  Commissioners  shall  be  designated  by  the 
President  as  the  Board  of  Indian  Depredation  Claims,  one  of  which  he 
shall  designate  as  Chairman  of  said  Board.  They  shall  perform  the  duties 
hereinafter  prescribed.  They  shall  each  receive  an  annual  salary  of  three 
thousand  dollars,  to  be  paid  in  monthly  payments.  In  addition  to  their 
salary  they  shall  each  receive  their  necessary  traveling  expenses  while  in 
the  performance  of  their  duty.  They  shall  each  take  the  usual  oath  of 
office  before  entering  upon  the  discharge  of  their  duties.  They  shall  have 
power  to  summon  witnesses,  administer  oaths,  and  make  all  such  needful 
rules  and  regulations  as  they  may  find  necessary  to  carry  out  the  objects  of 
this  Act  and  to  preserve  order.  Any  two  of  said  Commissioners  shall  con- 
stitute a  quorum  to  do  business,  and  they  shall  hold  their  regular  sessions 
in  the  city  of  Washington,  District  of  Columbia;  but  they  may  hold  special 
sessions  in  the  Indian  Territory,  or  at  such  other  place  or  places  as  they 
may  deem  best,  to  obtain  information  and  evidence  to  enable  them  to 
arrive  at  just  conclusions;  and  in  that  case  each  one  may  act  separately,  if 
so  decided  upon  by  the  full  Commission,  but  such  separate  action  shall  be 
submitted  to  the  Commission  in  general  session. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  shall  provide  a  suitable  office, 
with  necessary  office  furniture  and  stationery,  in  or  as  near  the  Interior 
Department,  in  Washington,  District  of  Columbia,  as  practicable,  for  said 
Board  of  Indian  Depredation  Claims.  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  and 
the  Secretary  of  War  are  hereby  directed  to  deliver,  or  cause  to  be  delivered. 


400 

to  the  Chairman  of  said  Board,  all  of  the  claims  for  depredations  commit- 
ted by  Indians  against  whites  or  their  property,  or  by  whites  against 
Indians  or  their  property,  and  all  other  papers  containing  statements  or 
proofs  in  support  of  or  against  said  claims  that  are  on  file  in  their  Depart- 
ments, together  with  such  information  as  they  are  in  possession  of  touching 
the  validity  of  such  claims.  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  hereby  author- 
ized and  directed  to  furnish  said  Board  with  a  competent  clerk,  who  shall 
be  a  stenographer,  and  whose  annual  pay  shall  be  two  thousand  dollars, 
payable  in  monthly  payments.  The  Secretary  shall  also  furnish  them 
with  a  competent  messenger,  whose  annual  pay  shall  be  eight  hundred 
dollars,  payable  in  monthly  payments. 

Sec.  3.  That  as  soon  as  said  Board  shall  have  received  the  claims  and 
other  papers  provided  for  in  section  two  of  this  Act,  they  shall  proceed  to 
the  performance  of  their  duties  as  provided  for  herein.  They  shall  ex- 
amine each  claim  separately,  including  all  proofs  on  file  for  or  against  or 
that  may  be  offered  for  or  against  such  claims,  and  decide  on  the  amount 
due,  if  any,  from  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or  from  Indian 
tribes  under  existing  laws  or  treaty  stipulations,  and  to  whom  due.  Each 
claim,  with  all  proofs  and  their  decision  thereon,  shall  be  kept  in  separate 
packages;  and  a  record  of  their  decision  in  each  case  shall  be  entered  in  a 
book  to  be  kept  for  that  purpose  by  their  clerk,  showing  the  number  of  the 
claim,  the  name  and  residence  of  the  claimant,  the  nature  of  the  claim,  the 
time  and  place  where  it  accrued,  the  amount  claimed,  and  the  amount 
allowed,  if  any. 

Sec.  4.  That  the  Board  of  Indian  Depredation  Claims  is  hereby  author- 
ized and  directed  to  examine  and  allow,  upon  satisfactory  proof,  not  to 
exceed  the  cash  value  at  the  time  of  the  loss  of  the  property  in  the  locality 
where  such  loss  occurred,  all  of  the  following  claims,  and  no  others: 

First — For  property  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  which  was  unlaw- 
fully taken  or  destroyed  by  Indians,  without  just  cause  or  provocation  on 
the  part  of  the  owner  or  agent  in  charge,  and  not  returned  or  paid  for. 

Second — For  property  unlawfully  taken  or  destroyed  by  whites  from 
peaceable  Indians,  without  just  cause  or  provocation  on  the  part  of  the 
owner  or  agent  in  charge,  and  not  returned  or  paid  for;  provided,  that  no 
claim  shall  be  allowed  for  property  lost  within  the  limits  of  any  Indian 
reservation  that  was  knowingly  kept  there  by  the  owner  unless  it  is  clearly 
proven  that  the  owner  of  said  property  had  a  legal  right  to  have  said  prop- 
erty on  said  reservation  at  the  time  of  said  loss,  and  that  he  had  given  no 
provocation  for  having  such  property  taken  or  destroyed.  That  said  Com- 
missioners shall  in  all  cases  take  into  consideration,  and,  if  proper,  allow, 
all  just  offsets  or  counter-claims  in  each  case  as  justice  and  equity  may 
require.  And  the  United  States  shall  be  represented  before  said  Commis- 
sioners through  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States,  whose  duty  it 
shall  be  to  see  that  the  interests  of  the  Government  are  properly  presented; 
and  the  claimants  shall  be  represented  before  said  Commissioners  in  per- 
son or  by  attorney. 

Sec.  5.  That  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Indian  Depredation  Claims 
is  hereby  directed  to  report  a  list  of  all  claims  acted  upon  by  said  Com- 
missioners to  Congress,  within  thirty  days  after  the  meeting  of  that  body 
at  their  first  session  after  the  passage  of  this  Act,  and  to  report  in  like 
manner  to  each  subsequent  Congress  thereafter,  and  oftener  if  called  upon 
by  either  House  of  Congress.  Said  report  shall  give  the  name  of  each 
claimant,  the  amount  claimed,  the  amount  allowed  by  the  Commissioners, 
the  residence  of  the  claimant,  and  the  time  and  place  where  the  loss  was 


401 

sustained.  The  original  claims,  with  proofs,  shall  he  kept  in  the  office  of 
said  Commissioners,  subject  to  the  order  of  Congress. 

Sec.  6.  That  the  amount  allowed  in  each  case  shall  be  incorporated  in 
the  general  Indian  appropriation  bill  unless,  in  the  judgment  of  Congress, 
said  allowances  are  unjust  to  the  claimants  or  the  Government;  provided^ 
that  if  any  of  the  amounts  so  found  due  and  allowed  by  said  Commissioners 
shall  be  for  property  taken  or  destroyed  by  any  tribe  of  Indians,  or  indi- 
vidual members  thereof,  having  funds  or  annuities  of  any  kind  due  or  to 
become  due  them  from  the  United  States,  such  amounts  shall,  if  appropri- 
ated for  in  the  general  Indian  appropriation  bill,  be  charged  to  said 
Indians,  and  deducted  from  such  dues  or  annuities. 

Sec.  7.  That  there  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  the  United  States 
Treasury,  out  of  any  money  not  otherwise  appropriated,  forty  thousand 
dollars,  or  so  much  thereof  as  is  necessary  to  pay  the  salaries  of  the  three 
Commissioners,  one  clerk,  one  messenger,  and  other  incidental  expenses 
connected  therewith,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  to  be 
audited  by  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department. 

Sec.  8.  That  all  claims  against  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
that  come  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  not  presented  as  provided  for 
herein  within  three  years  from  the  approval  of  this  Act,  shall  be  forever 
barred;  and  all  claims  that  are  presented  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act 
and  disallowed,  or  any  portion  of  such  claims  as  are  disallowed,  shall  be 
forever  barred  as  against  the  Government  of  the  United  States;  provided, 
that  either  the  claimant  or  the  Government  shall  have  the  right  to  appeal 
to  the  Court  of  Claims  from  any  decision  of  the  Commissioners  allowing 
or  disallowing  or  dismissing  any  claim,  within  ninety  days  from  the 
announcement  of  any  such  decision;  and  said  Court  shall  try  said  causes 
upon  the  proofs  received  and  considered  by  the  Commission,  and  such 
other  proofs  as  may  be  taken  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  said  Court, 
and  shall  report  to  Congress  upon  such  claims  in  the  manner  provided  in 
section  five  of  this  Act,  but  shall  not  render  judgment  in  such  cases.  The 
party  appealing  shall  be  known  as  the  appellant,  and  the  adverse  party 
as  the  respondent.  Such  appeal  shall  be  taken  by  the  appellant  filing  a 
notice  of  appeal,  specifying  the  grounds  of  such  appeal,  with  said  Com- 
missioners, at  their  office  in  the  city  of  Washington,  and  by  serving  a  copy 
of  such  notice  on  the  respondent  or  his  attorney.  The  appellant,  other 
than  the  United  States,  shall,  before  such  appeal  becomes  effective,  also  file 
with  said  Commissioners  a  bond  in  the  sum  of  five  hundred  dollars,  with 
proper  sureties,  to  be  approved  by  the  Chairman  of  said  Commissioners, 
conditioned  to  pay  the  cost  of  such  appeal  in  case  the  decision  of  the  Com- 
missioners is  not  reversed  in  whole  or  in  part;  and  upon  the  appeal  being 
perfected  as  aforesaid,  the  Commissioners  shall  transmit  the  entire  rec^ord 
and  all  the  proofs  and  papers  in  the  case  to  the  Court  of  Claims,  and  said 
Court  shall  thereupon  proceed  to  hear  and  determine  such  appeals  con- 
formably to  its  procedure  in  other  cases,  except  as  modified  by  this  Act. 

Sec.  9.  That  all  Acts  and  parts  of  Acts  in  conflict  or  inconsistent  with 
the  provisions  of  this  Act  are  hereby  repealed. 


Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  No.  3117. 

CLAIMS  ARISING  OUT  OF  INDIAN  TREATIES. 

June  30,  1886 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the 
state  of  the  Union  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

26"" 


402 

Mr.  Hailey,  from  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  submitted  the  follow- 
ing 

REPORT. 
[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  9729.] 

The  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R. 
7849)  "  to  establish  a  Board  of  Commissioners  to  examine,  adjust,  and  report 
on  all  claims  arising  out  of  Indian  treaties  and  depredations  committed  by 
the  Indians,  and  for  other  purposes,"  have  duly  considered  the  same  and 
report  as  follows: 

For  many  years  large  numbers  of  claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States 
for  depredations  committed  by  the  Indians  have  come  before  each  session 
of  Congress.  Some  have  been  presented  by  private  bills  and  petitions, 
while  many  others  have  been  transmitted  to  Congress  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior,  in  accordance  with  existing  law.  Numerous  other  claims  of 
Indians  for  depredations  by  white  men  have  also  been  reported  upon  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  No  positive  action  has  been  taken  by  any 
Congress,  with  a  view  to  final  disposition  of  either  of  these  classes  of  claims. 
At  each  session  numerous  propositions  have  been  made  in  the  form  of  gen- 
eral bills,  to  refer  these  claims  to  some  commission  or  to  the  Court  of  Claims; 
but,  so  far  as  your  committee  can  find,  no  action  has  ever  been  taken  by 
any  committee  upon  any  of  these  propositions.  Each  Congress  has  con- 
tented itself  with  paying  a  few  of  the  claims  by  special  enactment.  Your 
committee  have  had  before  them  both  general  and  special  bills,  proposing 
to  deal  with  claims  of  this  class  as  well  as  a  comprehensive  report  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  showing  the  number  of  claims  filed  in  this  Depart- 
ment (H.  R.  Ex.  Doc.  125,  Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session) .  After  a  care- 
ful consideration,  your  committee  have  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  only 
course  consistent  with  a  due  regard  on  the  one  hand  for  the  obligations  of 
the  Government,  and  on  the  other  for  the  proper  security  of  the  Treasury 
from  unfounded  demands,  is  to  provide  for  the  examination  of  these  claims 
by  some  tribunal  endowed  with  ample  facilities  for  sifting  their  merits 
thoroughly,  in  whose  findings  Congress  may  safely  repose  confidence. 
Mindful  of  the  importance  of  the  subject-matter,  your  committee  have 
deemed  it  proper  to  present  these  reasons  for  submitting  the  substitute 
which  accompanies  this  report. 

The  relations  of  the  Government  to  the  Indians  are  complex.  When  the 
problem  to  be  solved  involves  not  only  these  relations  but  also  the  obliga- 
tions of  the  Government  towards  its  citizens  and  the  Indians  in  their  rela- 
tions to  each  other,  its  true  solution  can  only  be  reached  after  the  ^  most 
painstaking  and  careful  consideration.  A  full  review  of  the  legislation  of 
Congress  upon  the  subject  of  the  depredations  of  Indians  and  whites  upon 
each  other  is  the  first  necessity  in  this  consideration. 

From  the  earliest  days  of  the  Government,  its  policy  in  regard  to  the 
Indians  has  been  to  keep  them  separated  from  the  whites  and  to  regulate 
all  intercourse  between  the  two  races  in  the  strictest  manner.  The  Act  of 
July  22,  1790  (1  Stat.  L.,  137),  is  the  first  law  of  the  United  States  to  regu- 
late trade  and  intercourse  with  the  Indian  tribes.  This  forbade  any  trad- 
ing with  the  Indians  except  by  those  receiving  Federal  licenses  therefor. 
By  Act  of  March  1,  1793  (1  Stat.  L.,  329),  these  provisions  were  reenacted 
and  other  provisions  adopted  forbidding  settlement  on  or  surveying  Indian 
lands,  and  making  void  all  purchases  of  land  from  Indians  except  by  treaty 
or  convention  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States. 

On  May  19,  1796,  a  third  and  more  comprehensive  Act  was  passed  to 


403 

cover  the  whole  subject  of  trade  and  intercourse  with  the  Indian  tribes. 
This  Act  (1  Stat.  L.*  469),  carefully  defined  the  Indian  country  by  metes 
and  bounds,  reenacted  the  various  restrictive  provisions  of  the  former  laws, 
and,  in  addition,  forbade  any  person  going  into  the  Indian  country  to  hunt 
or  graze  cattle,  under  the  penalty  of  fine  or  imprisonment,  or  even  entering 
the  Indian  country  south  of  the  Ohio  River  without  a  license.  Notwith- 
standing the  heavy  penalties  contained  in  this  Act  for  offenses  against  the 
Indians,  and  the  provisions  for  punishment,  if  found  outside  the  Indian 
country,  of  any  Indian  offending  against  the  whites.  Congress  foresaw  that 
depredations  would  occur  on  both  sides.  Provision  was  therefore  made  for 
such  cases.  Congress  was  not  unmindful  in  those  days  that  it  had  assumed 
a  large  but  definite  obligation  by  keeping  the  Indian  free  in  his  property 
from  any  liability  for  his  offenses  against  white  men,  and  by  guaranteeing 
him  absolute  immunity  of  person  if  he  should  return  to  his  reservation 
before  arrest.  Neither  was  Congress  inclined  to  refuse  the  assumption  of 
this  obligation  by  the  United  States,  even  at  a  time  when  the  impoverished 
condition  of  the  national  finances  commanded  the  most  careful  scrutiny  of 
every  new  assumption  of  financial  liability.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  felt 
that  the  Indian  should  know  that  he  should  suffer  no  wrong  by  the  evil 
actions  of  bad  white  men,  but  that  the  Great  Father  would  fully  care  for 
him.  It  was  felt,  too,  that  in  no  way  could  peace  be  so  well  kept  between 
the  two  races  as  by  the  assurance  that  the  Government  would  make  full 
recompense  for  all  wrongs  which  one  race  might  inflict  upon  the  other. 
Congress,  therefore,  governed  by  the  legal  obligation  in  the  one  case,  and  by 
a  high  sense  of  honor  in  dealing  with  inferior  peoples  in  the  other,  together 
with  a  just  appreciation  of  the  wisest  policy  toward  both  the  citizens  and 
the  Indians,  enacted  that  the  United  States  should  guarantee  an  eventual 
indemnity  both  to  white  men  and  to  Indians  for  the  losses  sustained  by  the 
depredations  of  the  one  upon  the  other.  With  a  view  to  enforcing  the  tribal 
responsibility  for  depredations,  all  payments  made  by  the  United  States 
for  depredations  by  the  Indians  were  to  be  reimbursed  out  of  tribal  funds, 
if  such  funds  existed,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  a  heavy  punishment  was 
affixed  to  the  offenses  committed  by  white  men  against  the  Indians. 

The  just  and  equitable  policy  embodied  in  this  law  was  continued  by 
repeated  enactment  for  many  years,  provisions  substantially  identical  being 
contained  in  two  temporary  statutes,  those  of  March  3, 1799  (Sees.  4  and  14, 
1  Stat.  L.,  747,  748),  and  March  30,  1802  (Sees.  4  and  14,  2  Stat.  L.,  141, 
143),  and  finally  embodied  in  the  permanent  "intercourse  Act"  of  June  30, 
1834  (Sees.  16  and  17,  4  Stat.  L.,  731).  All  these  sections  will  be  found  in 
full  in  Appendices  A  and  B,  which  are  attached  hereto  and  made  a  part  of 
this  report. 

These  ancient  rules,  controlling  the  Government  in  dealing  with  the 
relations  between  the  Indians  and  white  settlers,  continued  in  force  for 
nearly  sixty  years  without  substantial  change.  By  Act  of  February  28, 
1859,  Section  8  (11  Stat.  L.,  401),  Congress  repealed  the  provision  guaran- 
teeing eventual  indemnity  to  whites  for  losses  by  Indian  depredations  in 
cases  where  no  treaty  funds  existed,  although  carefully  preserving  by  the 
same  Act  the  obligation  to  make  indemnification  out  of  annuities,  and  sub- 
sequently providing  by  joint  resolution  of  June  25,  1860  (12  Stat.  L.,  120), 
that  any  right  to  indemnity  existing  at  the  date  of  the  former  Act  should 
not  be  impaired.  The  guarantee  of  indemnity  to  Indians  in  cases  of  dep- 
redations by  whites  was  not  affected  by  this  Act,  nor  has  there  been  any 
legislation  since  upon  this  subject.  It  remains  a  statutory  obligation.  Sec- 
tion 16  of  the  Act  of  June  30,  1834,  being  reenacted  as  Sections  2154  and 
2155,  Revised  Statutes. 


404 

During  all  this  period  of  time  payment  of  claims  for  Indian  depredations 
was  made  to  a  considerable  extent  by  the  Indian  Bureau.  After  the  Act 
of  1859,  the  same  course  was  followed  in  regard  to  claims  against  Indian 
tribes  to  whom  annuities  were  due.  If  the  claim  was  duly  proved  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  Indian  Bureau,  it  was  paid  out  of  the  annuities,  unless  as 
occurred  in  many  cases,  the  annuities  were  not  sufficient  to  supply  the 
absolute  needs  of  the  Indians.  In  that  case  the  claims  remained  unpaid 
ex  necessitate,  though  contrary  to  the  law.  But  after  the  close  of  the  late  war 
a  feeling  of  distrust  arose  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  means  under  the  control 
of  the  Indian  Bureau  for  determining  the  validity  of  claims  of  this  class. 
It  began  to  be  feared  that  an  executive  bureau  was  wanting  in  facilities  for 
the  investigation  of  claims  of  large  amounts,  involving  unliquidated  darn- 
ages,  sufficient  to  warrant  entire  confidence  that  just  claims  would  be  paid 
and  unjust  claims  rejected.  For  this  reason  Congress  determined  to  leave 
for  itself  the  final  disposition  of  all  such  cases,  and  enacted,  July  16,  1870 
(16  Stat.  L.,  360),  that  no  appropriations  to  pay  annuities  should  thereafter 
be  used  to  pay  depredation  claims,  and  that  no  depredation  claims  should 
be  paid  without  special  appropriation  therefor  by  Congress.  This  provision 
of  law  now  appears  as  Section  2098,  Revised  Statutes.  Two  years  after 
this  enactment  an  Act  of  Congress  (May  29,  1872)  (Section  7,  17  Stat.  L., 
190),  was  passed,  doubtless  designed  to  afford  a  comprehensive  remedy  to 
claimants  who  had  suffered  losses  by  Indian  depredations.  This  required 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  investigate  claims  of  this  class  presented  to 
him,  and  to  report  the  claims  to  Congress,  together  with  his  allowance  or 
disallowance,  and  all  the  evidence.  This  law  appears  as  Sections  445  and 
466,  Revised  Statutes.  It  was  probably  expected  that  the  reports  of  the 
Interior  Department  under  this  Act  would  be  generally  accepted,  and  that 
the  special  appropriations  for  allowed  claims  would  be  made  almost  as  a 
matter  of  course.  But  the  result  has  been  far  different.  The  reassertion 
of  the  ancient  liability  of  the  Government  is  strongly  implied  in  the  Act 
of  1872,  but  very  few  payments  have  been  made.  In  nearly  every  Congress 
bills  authorizing  the  payment  of  a  few  claims  have  become  laws  either 
because  of  their  exceptional  merit  or  from  some  other  causes.  While  these 
few  cases  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the  liability  of  the  Government  has 
been  constantly  affirmed,  they  amount  to  very  little  as  an  actual  discharge 
of  its  obligations.  So  great  was  the  wrong  caused  by  the  delay  in  payment 
that  at  the  second  session  of  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  a  large  number  of 
claims  of  this  kind  which  had  been  approved  by  the  Interior  Department 
were  placed  upon  the  Indian  appropriation  bill,  and  passed  by  the  House 
of  Representatives.  But  the  Senate,  in  compliance  with  its  rule  forbidding 
the  payment  of  private  claims  in  general  appropriation  Acts,  struck  all 
these  claims  out,  inserting  instead  an  appropriation  of  $10,000  for  a  further 
investigation  of  these  claims  by  the  Interior  Department.  (Act  of  March 
3,  1885,  23  Stat.  L.,  376;  see  copy  of  law  in  Appendix  A.)  The  chief  result 
of  this  investigation  seems  to  have  been  the  discovery  by  the  Indian  Office 
that  a  larg6  majority  of  the  claims  heretofore  duly  considered  were  barred 
by  the  provisions  of  a  repealed  law.  The  last  legislative  Act  upon  this  sub- 
ject is  an  appropriation  of  $20,000  by  the  Indian  Appropriation  Act  of  May 
15,  1886,  for  continuing  this  investigation,  the  appropriation  having  been 
inserted  by  the  Senate  after  the  bill  had  passed  the  House. 

This  review  of  the  legislation  on  the  subject  shows  that  the  payment  of 
claims  of  these  classes  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  old  and  settled  pol- 
icy of  the  Government  begun  seven  years  after  the  Constitution  went  into 
effect  and  reiterated  many  times  in  after  years.     This  policy,  too,  is  no  more 


405 

than  a  recognition  of  the  obligations  to  which  the  Government  is  bound 
upon  the  highest  principles  of  justice. 

In  the  able  and  comprehensive  speech  delivered  by  Senator  J.  N.  Dolph 
in  the  Senate  on  April  16,  1886  (Congressional  Record  Forty-ninth  Con- 
gress, first  session,  p.  3657),  the  principles  upon  which  the  obligation  rests 
to  pay  the  Indian  depredation  claims  are  fully  and  conclusively  stated. 
This  speech  is  the  most  complete  presentation  of  this  subject  ever  made  to 
either  house  of  Congress  and  contains  valuable  materials  to  which  this 
report  is  greatly  indebted.     (See  appendices.) 

Senator  Dolph  says  (pp.  3660  and  3661): 

Submission  to  the  Government  is  the  primary  obligation  of  the  citizen,  and  protection 
of  the  citizen  is  the  correlative  obligation  of  the  Government.  Theoretically,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  Government  to  afiord  protection  to  all  its  citizens  in  the  enjoyment  of  life,  liberty, 
and  property,  not  only  within  its  borders,  but  everywhere  they  may  lawfully  go.  While 
its  obligation  to  afford  protection  is  sometimes  by  law  devolved  by  the  State  upon  munic- 
ipal corporations  intrusted  with  certain  powers  of  government,  the  duty  is  the  duty  of  the 
State,  the  power  so  exercised  being  derived  from  the  State.  The  Government  of  the 
United  States  forms  no  exception  to  this  general  rule.  Within  the  powers  conferred  upon 
it  by  the  Federal  Constitution  and  for  the  purposes  of  its  creation  it  demands  the  alle- 
giance of  the  citizen,  and  to  the  extent  of  those  powers  it  owes  every  citizen  protection. 
As  Congress  has  power  "to  declare  war,"  "to  raise  and  support  armies,"  "provide  and 
maintain  a  navy,"  and  the  States  are  prohibited  from  keeping  ships  or  troops  in  time  of 
peace,  from  entering  into  any  agreement  or  compact  with  another  State  or  with  a  foreign 
power  or  to  engage  in  war,  it  becomes  the  evident  duty  of  the  General  Government  to 
protect  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  in  the  enjoyment  of  life,  liberty,  and  property 
against  foreign  powers  and  their  citizens  and  subjects,  and  the  obligation  of  the  Govern- 
ment to  do  this  has  never  been  denied,  and  in  the  discharge  of  this  obligation  it  has 
declared  war,  called  into  use  the  Army  and  Navy,  taxed  the  people,  and  borrowed  money 
upon  the  public  credit. 

For  every  wrong  there  should  be  a  remedy.  If  one  citizen  of  a  State  injures  another  in 
person  or  property,  the  State  ought  to  provide  for  the  redress  of  that  wrong  by  legal  meth- 
ods; and  whenever  the  State,  or  municipal  corporations  within  a  State,  fails  to  afford 
such  reasonable  protection  as  is  within  its  powers  to  the  citizen,  the  State  or  municipal 
corporation  upon  the  plainest  principles  of  justice  should  be  required  to  indemnify  the 
citizen  for  any  loss  sustained  by  reason  of  such  failure. 

The  States  are  powerless  under  the  Federal  Constitution  to  protect  their  citizens  from 
the  Indian  tribes.  It  is  true  that  in  case  of  actual  Indian  hostilities  they  may  repel  inva- 
sion and  drive  the  murderous  savages  back  to  their  cities  of  refuge — the  reservations — but 
within  them  they  are  safe  under  the  protecting  segis  of  the  Federal  authority.  The  States 
cannot  demand  or  enforce  satisfaction  from  the  Indians  for  the  losses  sustained  by  their 
citizens.  The  Federal  Government  interposes  itself  between  the  States  and  their  citizens 
to  shield  the  Indians  from  the  ordinary  and  natural  consequences  of  their  acts.  The  cit- 
izen cannot  justly  demand  that  recourse  against  the  State  which  is  allowed  by  the  laws 
of  many  countries  and  many  of  the  States  for  losses  occasioned  by  lawlessness  and  vio- 
lence, and  can  only  look  to  the  Federal  Government  for  redress. 

Hon.  Martin  Maginnis,  for  a  number  of  years  a  Delegate  from  Montana, 
has  also  very  forcibly  presented  the  obligation  of  the  Government  in  this 
matter  (Cong.  Rec,  vol.  11,  Part  1,  p.  640): 

The  Government  sets  up  in  the  Territories  these  independent  principalities  known  as 
reservations.  They  are  occupied  by  people  recognized  in  a  sense  as  independent  nation- 
alities, under  the  control  and  protection  of  the  General  Government.  The  laws  of  the 
commonwealths  in  which  they  are  situated  do  not  cover  them.  The  process  of  the  civil 
Courts  cannot  invade  them.  They  are  cities  of  refuge,  and  the  Government  declares  to  all 
surrounding  people  that  they  shall  not  disturb  its  wards,  and  assumes  the  position  of 
guardian  and  arbiter  between  them  and  all  others.  You  say  that  people  who  trade  or 
settle  in  such  countries  should  take  the  risk  of  their  ventures.  So  they  should  under  the 
laws.  But  if  a  white  man  burns  your  house  or  steals  your  horse  you  can  follow  him 
anywhere  with  the  law.  You  can  arrest  him,  punish,  and  perhaps  recover  your  property. 
But  when  these  Indians  make  a  raid  off  their  reservations,  invade  a  settlement,  and  take 
your  horses  and  cattle  and  drive  them,  under  your  very  eyes,  to  the  reservation,  what  can 
you  do  with  the  law  ? 

Suppose  they  murder  and  destroy  and  then  retreat  to  their  own  dominions,  and  your 
Marshals  and  Sheriffs  follow  them  in  hot  pursuit  to  the  very  boundaries  of  their  reserva- 
tion, what  remedy  have  you  ?  Your  law  no  longer  follows  the  Indians.  The  process  of 
your  Court  falls  dead  as  soon  as  your  pursuit  reaches  the  line  of  his  reservation,  which 


406 

the  Government  orders  you  not  to  cross,  and,  safe  in  his  city  of  refuge,  the  depredator 
laughs  at  you  and  is  safe  from  your  law  officers,  and  can  exhibit  your  stolen  property 
before  your  outraged  face,  and  you  have  no  right  to  reclaim  it,  and  no  remedy  for  your 
wrong,  except  through  the  General  Government. 

The  Government,  in  pursuance  of  its  settled  policy,  says  that  you  shall  not  cross  that 
line,  nor  shall  your  Courts,  or  their  officers,  or  your  local  laws.  It  says  these  people  are 
the  wards  of  the  Government,  and  if  you  have  any  cause  of  complaint  you  must  come  to 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  it  will  arbitrate  your  differences  and  settle  the 
measures  of  your  damages. 

Having  no  other  recourse,  and  being  forbidden  to  resort  to  any,  the  settler,  therefore, 
comes  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  right  his  wrong,  and  to  obtain  justice  for 
the  acts  which  have  been  committed  by  those  whom  the  Government  excludes  from  the 
operation  of  the  local  law,  and  for  whom,  as  its  own  wards,  it  assumes  the  responsibility. 

In  providing  for  the  payment  of  these  claims,  Congress  will  do  nothing 
more  than  follow  the  analogies  both  of  ancient  and  modern  laws  of  other 
jurisdictions,  holding  the  municipality  liable  in  case  of  damage  by  mobs. 
The  Saxon  laws  provided  that  the  ville  should  pay  forty  marks  for  the 
killing  of  any  person  if  the  slayer  escaped.  The  statutes  of  Manchester 
(13  Ed.  I,  ch.  1),  provided  that  the  hundred  should  be  liable  for  robberies, 
if  the  country  would  not  answer  for  the  bodies  of  the  offenders,  and  by  Act 
of  7  and  8  Geo.  IV,  ch.  31,  an  action  was  given  against  the  county  for 
damages  committed  by  mobs.  The  States  of  the  Union  have  not  been 
backward  in  following  these  precedents.  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  New 
Jersey,  Maryland,  South  Carolina,  Kentucky,  Maine,  New  Hampshire, 
Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  Wisconsin,  all  have  similar  laws.  If 
these  laws  be  good  public  policy  and  sound  justice  when  the  criminal  and 
civil  Courts  are  open  against  offenders,  how  much  more  should  the  United 
States  pay  for  the  depredations  unlawfully  committed  by  Indians,  who  are 
sacredly  protected  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  from  the  process 
of  the  Courts  of  justice? 

It  has  been  seen  that  the  statutory  obligation  requiring  payment  to  the 
Indians  in  case  of  offenses  committed  against  them  by  white  men  has  never 
been  in  the  least  altered.  On  the  contrary,  it  has  been  the  subject  of 
repeated  treaty  confirmations.  (See  Appendix  F.)  Your  committee  deem 
this  obligation  and  that  of  paying  our  citizens  for  depredations  committed 
by  the  Indians  to  be  reciprocal.  The  citizen  should  not  be  treated  with  less 
consideration  than  the  Indian.  The  duty  to  each  should  be  performed,  and 
means  provided  for  payment  to  each  of  his  rightful  dues.  Senator  Cole  of 
California,  well  said  in  1870  (Cong.  Globe,  Part  5,  p.  4010,  Forty-first  Con- 
gress, second  session) : 

A  great  deal  less  care,  it  seems  to  me,  is  given  to  our  own  race  than  to  the  Indian  race. 
We  are  providing  for  their  comfort  and  convenience,  and  not  providing  for  those  against 
whom  they  have  committed  oflenses—Aipon  whom  they  have  inflicted  damage  in  some  way 
or  other. 

The  bill  reported  by  your  committee  makes  a  just  provision  for  the  wrongs 
committed  on  both  sides. 

The  reading  of  the  many  Indian  treaties  made  from  the  foundation  of  the 
Government  to  1871,  when  further  treaty  making  with  Indians  was  forbid- 
den by  law,  shows  that  many  of  the  Indian  tribes  have  formally  agreed 
that  their  annuities  or  other  funds  shall  be  liable  for  payment  for  depreda- 
tions committed  by  members  of  the  tribes.  In  Appendix  D  to  this  report 
is  given  a  list  of  treaties  making  provisions  as  to  this  subject.  It  has 
already  been  seen  that  the  United  States  by  law  took  upon  itself  the 
obligation  of  paying  these  claims  from  treaty  funds,  and  has  never  divested 
itself  of  that  obligation,  although  there  has  been  for  a  number  of  years  a 
failure  to  make  appropriation  for  the  performance  of  this  obligation.     The 


407 

law  and  the  treaties  in  effect  make  the  Government  the  trustee  holding 
these  funds  for  the  benefit  of  the  sufferers  by  any  depredations  which  these 
Indians  may  commit. 

The  Government  has  also  assumed  the  obligation  of  caring  for  the  Indians 
and  supplying  all  their  material  necessities.  Where  the  Indians  have  had 
treaty  funds  due  them  the  Government  has  been  relieved  of  the  need  of 
appropriating  money  from  the  Treasury  to  supply  their  necessities;  but  in 
using  funds  which  ought  to  have  been  kept  for  the  benefit  of  the  sufferers 
by  depredations  in  supplying  the  need  of  the  Indians  the  trustee  has  made 
itself  liable  for  the  payment  of  the  claims  of  the  sufferers.  There  are  many 
Indians  to  whom  annuities  were  due  in  1870  who  have  now  received  every- 
thing due  them,  although  claims  for  depredations  committed  by  them  have 
been  presented  and  allowed. 

It  was  the  duty  of  the  Government,  both  by  statute  and  treaty,  to  pay  these 
claims  with  the  treaty  funds,  but  having  neglected  this  duty  and  diverted 
the  funds,  no  matter  how  useful  a  purpose,  it  must  now  answer  to  the 
claimants  from  the  Treasury.  In  House  Ex.  Doc.  5,  Forty-first  Congress, 
second  session,  p.  182,  it  appears  that  $4,167,486  30  was  estimated  as  nec- 
essary to  be  appropriated  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1870,  to  fulfill 
treaty  stipulations  with  Indian  tribes.  Nearly  all  this  sum  might  have  been 
held  by  the  Government  by  law  and  treaty  for  the  payment  of  claims  for 
depredations,  but  was  not.  But  payments  to  the  Indians  have  been  made 
to  so  large  an  extent  that  in  the  book  of  estimates  (H.  R.  Ex.  Doc.  5,  49th 
Cong.,  1st  sess.,  p.  250)  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1887,  only 
$2,725,444  84  is  estimated  to  be  necessary  for  this  purpose,  and  this  includes 
$1,400,000,  due  under  the  Act  of  February  28, 1877  (19  Stat.  L.,  256),  to  the 
Sioux  Indians.  (Same  document,  p.  137.)  This  leaves  an  annual  charge 
of  only  $1,325,444  84,  now  due  upon  treaty  obligations  existing  in  1870, 
against  $4,167,486  30  then  due,  and  this  lesser  sum  is  subject  to  annual 
diminution.  Wherever  these  now  exhausted  annuities  were  paid  to  tribes 
who  had  commited  depredations  the  Government  violated  its  trust  to  the 
sufferers,  and  now  should  answer  to  them. 

Your  committee  deem  it  proper  to  place  before  the  House  as  full  an  esti- 
mate as  possible  of  the  amount  of  claims  which  may  be  allowed  under  this 
Act  for  depredations  committed  by  Indians.  The  law,  as  has  already  been 
seen,  has  continuously  permitted  the  presentation  of  these  claims  to  the 
Indian  Bureau.  In  a  letter  to  Senator  Dolph  (see  Congressional  Record, 
49th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  p.  3665,  and  Appendix  I  to  this  report,  where  the  letter 
is  reprinted),  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  states  that  the  claims 
on  file  in  this  office,  dating  from  1850  to  the  present  time,  aggregate 
$13,000,000;  that  many  of  these  claims,  to  an  indeterminable  amount,  were 
paid  by  the  Indian  agents  prior  to  the  year  1870,  and  that  Congress  has 
appropriated  by  special  Acts  $1,654,530.  Subtracting  this  amount  appro- 
priated from  the  total  claimed,  leaves  $11,345,470  as  a  maximum  of  all  the 
claims  presented  without  allowing  for  the  uncertain  amount  paid  by  Indian 
agents.  By  reference  to  the  table  presented  as  Appendix  H  to  this  report, 
giving  the  amounts  claimed,  allowed,  and  disallowed,  in  various  claims 
tribunals,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  highest  proportion  of  the  amounts  allowed  to 
the  amounts  claimed  in  any  of  these  seven  tribunals  is  less  than  twenty-five 
per  cent;  that  this  maximum  percentage  was  in  a  tribunal  (the  Court  of 
Claims)  which  has  had  a  strict  statute  of  limitations,  and  in  which  the  cog- 
nizable claims  are  those  arising  upon  contract,  and  generally  for  liquidated 
sums;  that  the  next  highest  proportion,  in  claims  considered  by  the 
Quartermaster-General  under  the  Act  of  July  4,  1864,  is  but  fourteen  per 


408 

cent,  and  that  the  proportions  run  down  as  low  as  one  tenth  of  one  per  cent 
(claims  against  France  under  the  convention  of  January  15,  1880). 

As  many  of  the  witnesses  are  dead  by  whom  the  claims  embraced  in 
this  bill  might  have  been  proved  at  an  earlier  date,  as  many  of  the  claim- 
ants are  dead  and  their  heirs  scattered  to  all  parts  of  the  country,  and  as 
the  claims  are  for  items  of  property  which  are  easily  subject  to  a  higher 
valuation  by  the  ow^ner  than  they  might  have  in  the  view  of  the  Commis- 
sion, the  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  proportion  of  allowances  to 
claims  cannot  in  any  event  exceed  25  per  cent,  the  maximum  percentage 
shown  as  having  been  allowed  by  any  of  the  tribunals  whose  allowances 
are  contained  in  the  table  presented  in  Appendix  H.  This  is  a  liberal  esti- 
mate and  would  fix  the  total  of  allow^ances  upon  claims  already  filed  in 
the  Interior  Department  at  about  $2,800,000. 

It  is  not  possible  to  estimate  with  certainty  the  number  of  new  claims 
which  would  be  filed  before  the  Commission  in  addition  to  those  now  in 
the  Interior  Department.  The  committee  think  it  safe  to  say  that,  at  the 
outside,  no  more  than  one  half  as  many  claims  will  be  presented  as  have 
already  been  filed,  especially  when  it  is  known  that  all  the  claims  will  be 
subjected  to  the  rigid  scrutiny  of  a  commission  which  will  be  able  to  take 
testimony  on  the  spot  where  the  claim  originated.  Doubtless,  too,  the  pro- 
portion of  allowances  will  be  less  in  cases  to  be  filed  than  in  claims  presented 
shortly  after  the  losses  occurred.  But  if  this  liberal  addition  be  made  and 
the  same  proportion  of  allowances  used  as  a  basis  of  estimate,  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  total  expenditure  under  this  Act  for  Indian  depredation 
claims  is  not  likely  to  exceed  $4,200,000.  While  it  is  difficult  to  make  an 
approximation  of  this  character,  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  bases  of  calcu- 
lation involved  in  this  estimate  are  all  liberal.  The  payments  will  be 
extended  over  a  term  of  years,  and  will,  therefore,  not  fall  with  any  great 
weight  on  the  Government  in  any  particular  year. 

The  bill  reported  by  the  committee  provides  for  the  appointment  of  a 
special  Board  of  three  Commissioners,  who  shall  hold  their  regular  sessions 
in  Washington,  and  special  sessions  in  the  Indian  Territory,  or  in  any  other 
places  where  they  may  best  obtain  information  and  evidence  to  aid  them 
in  arriving  at  correct  decisions.  To  further  their  obtaining  evidence,  each 
member  of  the  Board  is  authorized  to  act  separately  for  that  purpose  only. 
All  decisions  upon  claims  are  to  be  made  by  the  Board  in  its  regular 
sessions.  All  claims  for  depredations  by  Indians  upon  whites  or  by  whites 
upon  Indians,  with  all  the  papers  and  information  relating  thereto  on  file 
in  the  Departments,  are  to  be  delivered  to  the  Board  on  its  organization. 
The  Board  is  also  authorized  to  consider  all  off'sets  or  counter-claims,  and 
allow  them  as  against  the  claimants. 

Your  committee  have  thought  it  best  that  the  functions  of  the 
Commissioners  should  be,  as  far  as  possible,  strictly  judicial.  They  have 
therefore  reported  in  the  bill  a  provision  making  it  the  duty  of  the  Attor- 
ney-General to  see  that  the  interests  of  the  Government  are  properly 
presented.  In  some  commissions  and  tribunals  heretofore  created,  possess- 
ing judicial  functions,  the  Commissioners  have  been  obliged  to  act  both 
as  judges  and  as  counsel  for  the  United  States.  These  two  positions  your 
committee  deem  to  be  especially  incompatible.  Either  the  Commissioner 
is  so  closely  occupied  by  his  judicial  duties  that  the  interests  of  the  Gov- 
ernment are  not  properly  cared  for,  or  in  his  zeal  for  the  protection  of  the 
United  States  he  forgets  his  judicial  capacity.  A  grievous  injustice  results 
in  either  case.  The  only  remedy  for  this  is  a  strict  separation  of  the  two 
functions. 


409 

Your  committee  are  strongly  opposed  to  any  secret  modes  of  examination 
of  claims  of  so  much  importance  as  those  embraced  in  this  bill,  and  believe 
that  the  Commission  should  take  all  its  proceedings  in  the  full  view  of  both 
parties,  as  represented  by  their  counsel,  and  subject  to  that  same  scrutiny 
which  experience  has  proved  to  be  so  valuable  in  the  ordinary  proceedings 
of  Courts.  Every  man  is  entitled  to  a  day  in  Court,  and  to  have  his  cause 
fairly  heard.  Your  committee  have  thought  it  proper  to  provide  for  such 
hearing  before  this  Commission,  believing  that  in  this  way  only  can  there 
be  satisfaction  with  its  decisions. 

The  amounts  thus  allowed  by  the  Commissioners  are  to  be  incorporated 
in  the  Indian  appropriation  bill.  But  your  committee  have  thought  it 
proper  to  express  in  this  bill  a  reservation,  excepting  from  appropriation 
any  allowances  which,  in  the  judgment  of  Congress,  are  unjust  to  the 
claimants  or  the  Government. 

Your  committee  have  also  provided  in  the  sixth  section  of  the  bill  that 
if  any  of  the  amounts  allowed  shall  be  for  depredations  committed  by 
tribes  of  Indians,  or  by  individual  members  of  tribes  having  funds  due  or 
to  become  due  them  from  the  Government,  the  amounts  appropriated  shall 
be  deducted  from  such  dues  or  annuities.  In  another  part  of  this  report 
it  has  been  shown  that  many  tribes  have  provided  by  treaty  for  such 
deductions.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  tribe  ought  not  to  suffer  for  the 
wrong  doings  of  its  individual  members;  but  your  committee  think  that 
the  correct  way  to  enforce  good  conduct  among  the  Indians  is  by  such  a 
provision,  thus  placing  the  responsibility  for  individual  conduct  upon  the 
tribe,  who  possess  the  control  over  the  individuals,  and  requiring  the  tribe 
to  answer  out  of  their  annuities  for  individual  misconduct.  This  was  the 
view  taken  by  Senator  Thayer  of  Nebraska,  in  debate  (Cong.  Globe,  41st 
Cong.,  2d  session,  part  5,  p.  4012). 

I  say  to  them  also  that  the  way  to  produce  an  effect  upon  the  Indians  is  by  letting  them 
know  that  if  they  commit  these  depredations  their  annuities  shall  be  taken  to  pay  for  them. 
This  is  the  only  way  in  which  you  will  reach  them.  That  is  the  only  way  in  which  you 
will  have  an  effect  on  the  Indians  and  compel  them  to  cease  their  depredations  on  the 
settlers. 

The  treaties  themselves  make  no  difference  in  their  provisions  for 
payment  out  of  annuity  funds  between  cases  of  individual  depredations 
and  those  of  tribal  depredations,  and  the  Act  of  1834  is  explicit  in  its 
reference  to  the  acts  of  individual  Indians.  The  general  theory  of  the 
Government  in  dealing  with  the  Indians  up  to  the  present  time  has  been 
to  deal  with  them  in  their  tribal  relations,  and  to  remit  individual  relations 
between  Indians  to  the  tribal  customs  and  regulations. 

The  number  of  Indians  in  the  United  States  in  1884,  exclusive  of  Alaska, 
was  264,369.  (See  report  of  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  for  1884, 
page  xviii.)  The  total  area  of  Indian  reservations,  October  10,  1883,  was 
135,998,101  acres.  (See  The  Public  Domain,  page  1253.)  This  is  an 
average  of  about  511  acres  to  each  Indian.  It  is  evident  to  the  most  casual 
observer  that  this  small  number  of  Indians  cannot  continue  indefinitely  to 
occupy  all  this  large  amount  of  land.  Numerous  bills  are  before  Congress 
at  every  session  proposing  to  divide  reservations  and  purchase  them  from 
the  Indians.  It  is  not  doubted  that  it  will  become  necessary  for  Congress 
at  some  future  day  to  provide  for  the  purchase  of  various  portions  of  the 
Indian  lands;  thereby  large  sums  of  money  will  become  due  to  different 
tribes.  Your  committee  believe  that  the  tribal  funds  so  obtained  should, 
equally  with  the  annuities  now  due,  be  chargeable  with  the  amounts  paid 
in  satisfaction  of  the  claims  for  depredations  committed  by  the  tribes. 


410 

They  therefore  report  a  provision  requiring  that  the  payments  on  account 
of  the  depredation  claims  shall  be  charged  to  and  deducted  from  funds 
"  to  become  due,"  as  well  as  those  already  due.  It  is  believed  that  the 
Indians  themselves  will  thus  ultimately  pay  the  greater  proportion  of  the 
claims  for  their  depredations. 

Your  committee  have  also  reported  a  provision  that  all  claims  not  pre- 
sented within  three  years  from  the  approval  of  this  Act,  and  all  claims, 
presented  and  disallowed,  and  all  disallowed  portions  of  claims,  shall  be 
forever  barred.  The  object  of  the  committee  in  this  provision  is  to  make 
the  proceedings  of  the  Commission  a  final  settlement  of  these  claims,  so 
that  they  shall  never  thereafter  be  urged  upon  Congress.  But  it  is  realized 
that  no  bar  of  this  kind  can  be  final  unless  every  claim  has  received  such 
thorough  and  careful  consideration  as  will  commend  itself  to  the  sense  of 
justice  of  the  American  people.  To  effect  this  end  fully  your  committee 
have  provided  that  an  appeal  to  the  Court  of  Claims  be  allowed  in  every 
claim  from  the  decision  of  the  Commission,  whether  it  is  for  the  Govern- 
ment or  the  claimant.  This  Court,  after  an  existence  of  over  thirty  years, 
has  established  itself  in  the  public  confidence.  So  carefully  are  its  decis- 
ions considered  that  at  the  term  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
for  1885-86,  no  decision  of  the  Court  of  Claims  was  reversed,  although 
eighteen  appeals  from  this  Court  were  decided.  It  is  believed  that  when 
the  action  of  a  temporary  Commission  is  taken  under  the  watchful  eye  of 
a  Court  and  its  decisions  are  subject  to  the  scrutiny  of  a  reviewing  power, 
it  will  exercise  its  authority  with  greater  care  than  if  subject  to  no  control. 
The  experience  of  Congress  in  some  past  instances  shows  that  even  after  a 
decision  by  a  quasi  judicial  tribunal  claimants  are  apt  to  appear  before 
Congress  with  rejected  claims  and  pray  a  reversal  of  the  action  of  this 
tribunal.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  the  Committee  on  War  Claims  is 
overburdened  year  after  year  with  appeals,  mounting  in  number  into  the 
thousands,  from  claimants  who  allege  that  they  have  been  injured  by  the 
adverse  action  of  the  Southern  Claims  Commission  and  the  Quartermaster- 
General.  That  committee  has  already  found  it  necessary  to  refer  many  of 
these  claims,  already  decided  by  one  or  the  other  of  these  tribunals,  to  the 
Court  of  Claims  for  reconsideration,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
the  Act  of  March  3,  1883,  commonly  called  the  "  Bowman  Act."  It  is 
believed  that  such  an  undesirable  result  as  this  can  best  be  avoided  by 
permitting  every  claimant  who  deems  the  action  of  the  Commission  unjust 
to  appeal  to  the  Court  of  Claims  at  once.  The  Court  of  Claims  is  actually 
an  appeal  Court  from  the  decisions  of  the  various  departments.  Claimants 
whose  demands  are  rejected  by  the  tribunals  of  first  instance,  usually  the 
Executive  Departments,  have  in  general  a  right  of  appeal  to  the  Court  of 
Claims.  There  seems  to  be  no  reason. why  the  claimants  provided  for  in 
this  bill  should  be  precluded  from  further  remedy  by  the  adverse  decision 
of  the  Court  of  first  instance.  They  are  therefore  afforded  a  right  to  review 
by  a  superior  tribunal.  The  Government  is  put  in  an  equally  advantageous 
position.  The  findings  of  the  Commission  in  favor  of  claimants  may  be 
again  examined  and  the  United  States  will  appropriate  to  pay  only  claims 
which  have  passed  the  scrutiny  of  the  Court  of  Claims,  or  in  which  the  law 
officers  of  the  Government  may  acquiesce  in  the  decisions  of  the  Commis- 
sion. The  Court  of  Claims  is  not  authorized  to  render  judgment  in  such 
cases,  but  makes  a  report  to  Congress  in  the  same  manner  as  is  made  by 
the  Commission. 

Your  committee  believe  that  the  passage  of  the  bill  reported  by  them 
will  afford  valuable  and  much  needed  relief  in  many  ways.  The  Secretary 
of  the  Interior  and  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Aff'airs,  and  to  some  extent 


411 

the  Secretary  of  War,  already  crowded  with  necessary  and  proper  duties, 
have  been  burdened  with  work  for  which  an  Executive  Department  is  not 
fitted — the  investigation  of  old  and  disputed  demands  against  the  Govern- 
ment. The  same  claims,  after  investigation  in  the  executive  branch  of  the 
Government,  have  been  repeatedly,  and  with  justice,  pressed  upon  Con- 
gress. Members  of  Congress,  upon  whose  time  the  public  business  makes 
the  most  urgent  demands,  have  been  compelled  to  give  attention  to  these 
cases,  and  the  committees  year  after  year  have  had  their  dockets  burdened 
with  them.  Each  Congress  has  seen  a  few  cases  disposed  of,  but  many 
more  added  to  take  their  places.  This  bill  relieves  both  the  executive  and 
legislative  branches  of  the  Government  by  creating  a  new  tribunal  with 
powers  which  enable  it  to  properly  exercise  judicial  functions.  But  not 
alone  to  the  Government  does  this  bill  offer  relief.  Your  committee  believes 
that  it  affords  a  just  and  proper  means  of  settlement  for  well  founded  and 
long  urged  demands  both  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  the 
wards  of  the  Government.  The  meeting  of  the  two  races  upon  the  frontier 
has  necessarily  been  fruitful  in  conflict.  There  have  been  wrongs  on  both 
sides.  To  the  Indian,  the  ward  of  the  Government,  justice  and  generosity 
must  go  hand  in  hand  in  awarding  recompense  for  wrongs.  The  settler 
rightfully  demands  an  equal  justice.  The  early  pioneers  in  the  far  West, 
the  makers  of  a  new  civilization,  the  founders  of  a  great  empire,  the  leaders 
in  the  great  army  of  workers  who  have  made  the  vast  western  wilderness 
blossom  with  rich  harvests,  are  among  the  noblest  heroes  and  greatest  bene- 
factors of  this  Republic,  and  deserve  from  a  grateful  country  an  ample 
recognition  of  their  trials  and  privations.  It  is  difficult  for  one  who  has 
not  taken  part  in  that  stupendous  work  to  realize  the  labors  of  these  early 
pioneers.  Crossing  the  plains  by  slow  and  toilsome  journeys,  day  after 
day  gradually  pressing  nearer  to  their  long  sought  destinations,  reaching 
them  after  trials  sufficient  to  dismay  less  stout  hearts,  they  begin  to  carve 
out  homes  for  themselves,  their  wives  and  their  children,  in  the  wilderness. 
The  clearing  is  made,  the  house  built,  the  field  fenced  and  plowed,  the  seed 
planted,  and  the  harvest  reaped.  Then  when  the  settler  has  passed  his 
weariest  day  of  toil  and  the  future  begins  to  look  full  of  promise,  a  sudden 
warning  is  swiftly  borne  from  the  next  settlement  that  the  hostile  Indians 
are  coming.  The  warning  comes  too  late.  Before  the  settler  can  escape 
the  savages,  mounted  on  the  murdered  white  man's  horses,  fed  with  Gov- 
ernment rations,  armed  with  guns  with  which  a  kind  guardian  has  provided 
them — these  wards  of  the  nation  sack  his  house  and  carry  away  or  burn  all 
the  fruits  of  his  toil.  The  settler  is  fortunate  if  he  escapes  with  his  life  or 
if  he  does  not  see  his  wife  and  daughters  killed  before  his  eyes  or  suffer  a 
fate  far  worse  than  death.  When  the  Indians  are  gone  all  that  is  left  is  a 
heap  of  ruins.  His  home  is  a  home  no  longer;  it  is  little  more  than  the 
wilderness.  If  he  dares  again  occupy  his  old  homestead  he  must  begin  life 
anew.  Such  is  the  veritable  history  of  many  a  settler.  Year  after  year  has 
every  Representative  from  the  West  been  appealed  to  by  these  veterans  to 
secure  a  recognition  by  the  Government  of  their  just  demands,  until  now 
these  old  heroes  of  a  struggle  as  noble  in  its  victories  but  as  sad  in  its 
defeats  as  any  war,  ask  with  despair:  "  Shall  we  never  be  paid  for  our 
losses?" 

Your  committee  are  not  unmindful  of  the  weighty  responsibility  of  the 
Government  to  the  Indians,  or  that  they,  too,  have  suffered  wrongs.  But 
the  settler  himself  must  receive  a  long  delayed  measure  of  justice.  It  is 
believed  that  the  bill  reported  by  your  committee  as  a  substitute  for  House 
Bill  7849  affords  a  practical  mode  of  redress.  It  is  therefore  reported  favor- 
ably to  the  House,  with  the  recommendation  that  it  do  pass. 


412 

Appendix  A. 

GENERAL  LEGISLATION   ON   CLAIMS   FOR   DEPREDATIONS   COMMITTED   BY   INDIANS. 

I.— Act  of  May  19, 1796,  Sec.  U  (i  Stat.  L.,  472). 

And  he  it  further  enacted,  That  if  any  Indian  or  Indians,  belonging  to  any  tribe  in  amity 
with  the  United  States,  shall  come  over  or  across  the  said  boundary  line  into  any  State  or 
Territory  inhabited  by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  there  take,  steal,  or  destroy  any 
horse,  horses,  or  other  property,  belonging  to  any  citizen  or  inhabitant  of  the  tfnited 
States,  or  of  either  of  the  territorial  districts  of  the  United  States,  or  shall  commit  any 
murder,  violence,  or  outrage,  upon  any  such  citizen  or  inhabitant,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
such  citizen  or  inhabitant,  his  representative,  attorney,  or  agent,  to  make  application  to 
the  superintendent,  or  such  other  person  as  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall 
authorize  for  that  purpose;  who,  upon  being  furnished  with  the  necessary  documents  and 
proofs,  shall,  under  the  direction  or  instruction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
make  application  to  the  nation  or  tribe,  to  which  such  Indian  or  Indians  shall  belong,  for 
satisfaction ;  and  if  such  nation  or  tribe  shall  neglect  or  refuse  to  make  satisfaction,  in  a 
reasonable  time,  not  exceeding  eighteen  months,  then  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  super- 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  forward  to  him  all  the  documents  and  proofs  in  the 
intendent,  or  other  person  authorized,  as  aforesaid,  to  nuike  return  of  his  doings  to  the 
case,  that  such  further  steps  may  be  taken  as  shall  be  proper  to  obtain  satisfaction  for  the 
injury.  And,  in  the  meantime,  in  respect  to  the  properry  so  taken,  stolen,  or  destroyed, 
the  United  States  guarantee  to  the  party  injured  an  eventual  indemnification;  provided 
always,  that  if  such  injured  party,  his  representative,  attorney,  or  agent,  shall  in  any  way 
violate  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  by  seeking  or  attempting  to  obtain  private  satis- 
faction or 'revenge,  by  crossing  over  the  line,  on  any  of  the  Indian  lands,  he  shall  forfeit 
all  claim  upon  the  United  States  for  such  indemnification ;  and  provided,  also,  that  noth- 
ing herein  contained  shall  x>revent  the  legal  apprehension  or  arresting,  within  the  limits 
of  any  State  or  district,  of  any  Indian  having  so  offended;  and  provided  further,  that  it 
shall  be  lawful  for  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  deduct  such  sum  or  sums  as  shall 
be  paid  for  the  property  taken,  stolen,  or  destroyed,  by  any  such  Indian,  out  of  the  annual 
stipend  which  the  United  States  are  bound  to  pay  to  the  tribe  to  which  such  Indian  shall 
belong. 

11.— Act  of  March  3, 1799,  Sec.  U  {1  Stat.  L.,  747). 

And  he  it  further  enacted,  That  if  any  Indian  or  Indians,  belonging  to  any  tribe  in  amity 
with  the  United  States,  shall  come  over  or  cross  the  said  boundary  line,  into  any  State  or 
Territory  inhabited  by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  there  take,  steal,  or  destroy  any 
horse,  or  horses,  or  other  property,  belonging  to  any  citizen  or  inhabitant  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  either  of  tlie  territorial  districts  of  the  United  States,  or  shall  commit  any 
murder,  violence,  or  outrage  upon  any  such  citizen  or  inhabitant,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
such  citizen  or  inhabitant,  his  representative,  attorney,  or  agent,  to  make  application  to 
the  superintendent,  or  such  other  person  as  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall 
authorize  for  that  purpose ;  who,  upon  being  furnished  with  the  necessary  documents  and 
proof,  shall,  under  the  direction  or  instruction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
make  application  to  the  nation  or  tribe  to  which  such  Indian  or  Indians  shall  belong  for 
satisfaction,  and  if  such  nation  or  tribe  shall  neglect  or  refuse  to  make  satisfaction,' in  a 
reasonable  time,  not  exceeding  eighteen  months,  then  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  super- 
intendent, or  other  person  authorized  as  aforesaid,  to  make  return  of  his  doings  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  forward  to  him  all  the  documents  and  proofs  in  the 
case,  that  such  further  steps  may  be  taken  as  shall  be  proper  to  obtain  satisfaction  for  the 
injury;  and,  in  the  meantime,  in  respect  to  the  property  so  taken,  stolen,  or  destroj^ed, 
the  United  States  guarantee  to  the  party  injured,  an  eventual  indemnification;  provided 
always,  that  if  such  injured  party,  his  representative,  attorney,  or  agent,  shall,  in  any  way, 
violate  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act  by  seeking,  or  attenipting  to  obtain  private  satis- 
faction or  revenge,  by  crossing  over  the  line,  on  any  of  the  Indian  lands,  he  shall  forfeit 
all  claim  upon  the  United  States  for  such  indemnification ;  and  provided,  also,  that  noth- 
ing herein  contained  shall  prevent  the  legal  apprehension  or  arresting,  within  the  limits 
of  any  State  or  district,  of  any  Indian  having  so  offended;  and  provided  further,  that  it 
shall  be  lawful  for  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  deduct  such  sum  or  sums  as 
shall  be  paid  for  the  property  taken,  stolen,  or  destroyed  by  anj^;  such  Indian,  out  of  the 
annual  stipend  which  the  United  States  are  bound  to  pay  to  the  tribe  to  which  such  Indian 
shall  belong. 

HI.— Act  of  March  30, 1802,  Sec.  I4  {2  Stat.  L.,  Ip). 

And  he  it  further  enacted.  That  if  any  Indian  or  Indians,  belonging  to  any  tribe  in  amity 
with  the  United  States,  shall  come  over  or  cross  the  said  boundary  line,  into  any  State  or 
Territory  inhabited  by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  there  take,  steal,  or  destroy  any 
horse,  horses,  or  other  property,  belonging  to  any  citizen  or  inhabitant  of  the  United  States, 
or  of  either  of  the  Territorial  districts  of  the  United  States,  or  shall  commit  any  murder, 
violence,  or  outrage,  upon  any  such  citizen  or  inhabitant,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  citi- 
zen or  inhabitant,  his  rej)resentative,  attorney,  or  agent,  to  make  application  to  the  super- 
intendent, or  such  other  person  as  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall  authorize  for 
that  purpose,  who,  upon  being  furnished  with  the  necessary  documents  and  proofs,  shall, 
under  the  direction  or  instruction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  make  application 


413 

to  the  nation  or  tribe  to  which  such  Indian  or  Indians  shall  belong,  for  satisfaction,  and  if 
such  nation  or  tribe  shall  neglect  or  refuse  to  make  satisfaction  in  a  reasonable  time,  not 
exceeding  twelve  months,  then  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  superintendent,  or  other  per- 
son authorized  as  aforesaid,  to  make  return  of  his  doings  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  forward  to  him  all  the  documents  and  proofs  in  the  case,  that  such  further 
steps  may  be  taken  as  shall  be  proper  to  obtain  satisfaction  for  the  injury.  And,  in  the 
meantime,  in  respect  to  the  property  so  taken,  stolen,  or  destroyed,  the  United  States 
guarantee  to  the  party  injured  an  eventual  indemnification ;  provided  always,  that  if  such 
injured  party,  his  representative,  attorney,  or  agent,  shall  in  any  way  violate  any  of  the 

Erovisions  of  this  Act,  by  seeking  or  attempting  to  obtain  private  satisfaction  or  revenge, 
y  crossing  over  the  line,  on  any  of  the  Indian  lands,  he  shall  forfeit  all  claim  upon  the 
United  States  for  such  indemnification ;  and  provided,  also,  that  nothing  herein  contained 
shall  prevent  the  legal  apprehension  or  arresting,  within  the  limits  of  any  State  or  district, 
of  any  Indian  having  so  oliended ;  and  further  provided,  that  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the 
President  of  the  United  States  to  deduct  such  sum  or  sums  as  shall  be  paid  for  the  prop- 
erty taken,  stolen,  or  destroyed  by  such  Indian,  out  of  the  annual  stipend  which  the  United 
States  are  bound  to  pay  to  the  tribe  to  which  such  Indian  shall  belong* 

lY.—Act  of  June  SO,  1834,  Sec.  17  (4  Stat.  L.,  731). 

And  he  it  further  enacted.  That  if  any  Indian  or  Indians  belonging  to  any  tribe  in  amity 
with  the  United  States  shall,  within  "the  Indian  country,  take  or  destroy  the  property  of 
any  person  lawfully  within  such  country,  or  shall  pass  from  the  Indian  country  into  Imy 
State  or  Territory  inhabited  by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  there  take,  steal,  or 
destroy  any  horse,  horses,  or  other  property,  belonging  to  any  citizen  or  inhabitant  of  the 
United  States,  such  citizen  or  inhabitant,  his  representative,  attorney,  or  agent,  may  make 
application  to  the  proper  superintendent,  agent,  or  sub-agent,  who,  upon  being  furnished 
with  the  necessary  documents  and  proofs,  shall,  under  the  direction  of  the  President, 
make  application  to  the  nation  or  tribe  to  which  said  Indian  or  Indians  shall  belong,  for 
satisfaction ;  and  if  such  nation  or  tribe  shall  neglect  or  refuse  to  make  satisfaction  in  a 
reasonable  time,  not  exceeding  twelve  months,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  superintendent, 
agent,  or  sub-agent,  to  make  return  of  his  doings  to  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs, 
that  such  further  steps  may  be  taken  as  shall  be  proper,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President, 
to  obtain  satisfaction  for  the  injury ;  and,  in  the  meantime,  in  respect  to  the  {property  so 
taken,  stolen,or  destroyed,  the  United  States  guarantee  to  the  party  so  injured  an  eventual 
indemnification ;  provided,  that  if  such  injured  party,  his  representative,  attorney,  or 
agent,  shall  in  any  way  violate  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  by  seeking  or  attempting 
to  obtain  private  satisfaction  or  revenge,  he  shall  forfeit  all  claim'upon  the  United  States 
for  such  mdemnification;  and  provided,  also,  that  unless  such  claim  shall  be  presented 
within  three  years  after  the  commission  of  the  injury,  the  same  shall  be  barred.  And  if 
the  nation  or  tribe  to  which  such  Indian  may  belong  receive  any  annuity  from  the  United 
States,  such  claim  shall,  at  the  next  payment  of  the  annuity,  be  deducted  therefrom  and 
paid  to  the  party  injured;  and  if  no  annuity  is  payable  to  such  nation  or  tribe,  then  the 
amount  of  the  claim  shall  be  paid  from  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States;  provided,  that 
nothing  herein  contained  shall  prevent  the  legal  apprehension  and  punishment  of  any 
Indians  having  so  offended. 

N.—Act  of  February  28, 1869,  Sec.  8  {11  Stat.  L.,  4OI). 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  so  much  of  the  Act  entitled  "  An  Act  to  regulate  trade 
and  intercourse  with  the  Indian  tribes,  and  preserve  peace  on  the  frontiers,"  approved 
June  thirteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-four,  as  provides  that  the  United  States 
shall  make  indemnification  out  of  the  Treasury  for  property  taken  or  destroyed  in  certain 
cases,  by  the  Indians  trespassing  on  white  men  as  described  in  the  said  Act,  be  and  the 
same  is  hereby  repealed;  provided,  however,  that  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  so  con- 
strued as  to  impair  or  destroy  the  obligations  of  the  Indians  to  make  indemnification  out 
of  the  annuities  as  prescribed  in  said  A.ct. 

Yl.— Joint  Resolution  of  June  25, 1860  {12  Stat.  L.,  120). 

That  the  repeal  of  [by]  the  eighth  section  of  the  Act  of  Congress,  approved  the  twenty- 
eighth  day  of  February,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-nine,  of  so  much  of  the  Act  of  Con- 
gress entitled  "  An  Act  to  regulate  trade  and  intercourse  with  Indian  tribes,  and  to  preserve 
peace  on  the  frontiers,"  approved  June  thirteenth,  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-four,  as 
provides  that  the  United  States  shall  make  indemnification  out  of  the  Treasury  for  prop- 
erty taken  or  destroyed  in  certain  cases  by  Indians  trespassing  on  white  men,  as  described 
in  said  Act,  shall  not  be  construed  to  destroy  or  impair  any  right  to  indemnity  which 
existed  at  the  date  of  said  repeal. 

Yll.—Act  of  July  15, 1870,  Sec.  4  {16  Stat.  L.  360).    Sec.  2098,  Revised  Statutes. 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  no  part  of  the  moneys  appropriated  by  this  Act,  or  which 
may  hereafter  be  appropriated  in  any  general  Actor  deficiency  bill  making  appropriations 
for  the  current  and  contingent  expenses  of  the  Indian  department,  to  pay  annuities  due 


414 

to  or  to  be  used  and  expended  for  the  care  and  benefit  of  any  tribe  or  tribes  of  Indians 
named  herein,  shall  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  any  claim  for  depredations  that  may 
have  been  or  may  be  committed  by  such  tribe  or  tribes,  or  any  member  or  members 
thereof;  and  no  claim  for  Indian  depredations  shall  hereafter  be  paid  until  Congress  shall 
make  special  appropriation  therefor;  and  all  Acts  and  parts  of  Acts  inconsistent  herewith 
are  hereby  repealed. 

YIll.—Act  of  May  29, 1872,  Sec.  7  {17  Stat.  L.,  190).    Sees.  445  and  466,  Revised  Statutes. 

That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  prepare  and  cause  to  be 
published  such  rules  and  regulations  as  he  niay  deem  necessary  or  proper,  prescribing  the 
manner  of  presenting  claims  arising  under  existing  laws  or  treaty  stipulations,  for  com- 
pensation for  depredations  committed  by  the  Indians,  and  the  degree  and  character  of 
the  evidence  necessary  to  support  such  claims;  he  shall  carefullj'  investigate  all  such 
claims  as  may  be  pres'ented,  subject  to  the  rules  and  regulations  prepared  l3y  him,  and 
report  to  Congress,  at  each  session  thereof,  the  nature,  character,  and  amount  of  such 
claims,  whether  allowed  by  him  or  not,  and  the  evidence  upon  which  his  action  was  based; 
provided,  that  no  payment  on  account  of  said  claims  shall  be  made  without  a  specific 
appropriation  therefor  by  Congress. 

YK.— Section  2156,  Revised  Statutes. 

If  any  Indian  belonging  to  any  tribe  in  amity  with  the  United  States  shall,  within  the 
Indian 'country,  take  or  destroy  the  property  of  any  person  lawfully  within  such  country, 
or  shall  pass  from  Indian  country  into  any  State  or  Territory  inhabited  by  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  and  there  take,  steal,  or  destroy  any  horse  or  other  property  belonging  to 
any  citizen  or  inhabitant  of  the  United  States,  such  citizen  or  inhabitant,  his  representa- 
tive, attorney,  or  agent,  may  make  application  to  the  proper  superintendent,  agent,  or  sub- 
agent,  who,  upon  being  furnished  with  the  necessary  documents  and  proofs,  shall,  under 
the  direction  of  the  President,  make  application  to  the  nation  or  tribe  to  which  such  Indian 
shall  belong  for  satisfaction;  and  if  such  nation  or  tribe  shall  neglect  or  refuse  to  make 
satisfaction  in  a  reasonable  time,  not  exceeding  twelve  months,  such  superintendent,  agent, 
or  sub-agent  shall  make  return  of  his  doings  to  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Aflfairs,  that 
such  further  steps  may  be  taken  as  shall  be  proper,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President,  to 
obtain  satisfaction  for  the  injury. 

X.— ^c«  of  March  3, 1885  {23  Stat.  L.,  376). 

INDIAN   DEPKEDATION   CLAIMS. 

For  the  investigation  of  certain  Indian  depredation  claims,  ten  thousand  dollars;  and 
in  expending  said  sum  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  shall  cause  a  complete  list  of  all  claims 
heretofore  filed  in  the  Interior  Department,  and  which  have  been  approved  in  whole  or  in 
part,  and  now  remain  unpaid,  and  also  all  such  claims  as  are  pending  but  not  yet  exam- 
ined, on  behalf  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  on  account  of  depredations  committed, 
chargeable  against  any  tribe  of  Indians  by  reason  of  any  treaty  between  such  tribe  and  the 
United  States,  including  the  name  and  address  of  the  claimants,  the  date  of  the  alleged 
depredations,  by  what  tribe  committed,  the  date  of  examination  and  approval,  with  a  ref- 
erence to  the  date  and  clause  of  the  treaty  creating  the  obligation  for  payment,  to  be  made 
and  presented  to  Congress  at  its  next  regular  session ;  and  the  Secretary  is  authorized  and 
empowered,  before  making  such  report,  to  cause  such  additional  investigation  to  be  made 
and  such  further  testimony  to  be  taken  as  he  may  deem  necessary  to  enable  him  to  deter- 
mine the  kind  and  value  of  all  property  damaged  and  destroyed  by  reason  of  the  depreda- 
tions aforesaid,  and  by  what  tribe  such  depredations  were  committed ;  and  his  report  shall 
include  his  determination  upon  each  claim,  together  with  the  names  and  residences  of 
witnesses  and  the  testimony  of  each,  and  also  what  funds  are  now  existing  or  to  be  derived 
by  reason  of  treaty  or  other  obligation  out  of  which  the  same  should  be  paid. 

XL— Act  of  May  15, 1886  {not  yet  ptihlished). 

Indian  depredation  claims:  For  continuing  the  investigation  and  examination  of  cer- 
tain Indian  depredation  claims,  originally  authorized,  and  in  the  manner  therein  provided 
for,  by  the  Indian  appropriation  Act,  approved  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty- 
five,  twenty  thousand  dollars  ;  and  the  examination  and  report  shall  include  claims  if  any, 
barred  by  statute,  such  fact  to  be  stated  in  the  report;  and  all  claims  whose  examination 
shall  be  completed  by  .January  first,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-seven,  shall  then  be 
reported  to  Congress,  with  the  opinions  and  conclusions  of  the  Commissioner  of  Indian 
Affairs  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  upon  all  material  facts,  and  all  the  evidence  and 
papers  pertaining  thereto. 

Appendix  B. 

genekal  legislation  on  claims  for  depredations  committed  by  whites  on  the  prop- 
erty of  indians. 

l.—Act  of  May  19, 1796,  Sec.  4  {1  Stat.  L.,  470). 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  if  any  such  citizen,  or  other  person,  shall  go  into  any 
town,  settlement,  or  territory  belonging,  or  secured  by  treaty  with  the  United  States,  to 


415 

any  nation  or  tribe  of  Indians,  and  shall  there  commit  robbery,  larceny,  trespass,  or  other 
crime  against  the  person  or  property  of  any  friendly  Indian  or  Indians  which  would  be 
punishable,  if  committed  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any  State  against  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  or  unauthorized  by  law,  and  with  a  hostile  intention,  shall  be  found  on 
any  Indian  land,  such  offender  shall  forfeit  a  sum  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars,  aud 
be  imprisoned  not  exceeding  twelve  months ;  and  shall  also,  when  property  is  taken  or 
destroyed,  forfeit  and  pay  to  such  Indian  or  Indians  to  whom  the  property  taken  and 
destroyed  belongs  a  sum  equal  to  twice  the  just  value  of  the  property  so  taken  or 
destroyed  i  and  if  such  offender  shall  be  unable  to  pay  a  sum  at  least  equal  to  the  said 
just  value,  whatever  such  payment  shall  fall  short  of  the  said  just  value  shall  be  paid  out 
of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States ;  provided,  nevertheless,  that  no  such  Indian  shall  be 
entitled  to  any  payment  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  for  any  such  property 
taken  or  destroyed  if  he,  or  any  of  the  nation  to  which  he  belongs,  shall  have  sought 
private  revenge  or  attempted  to  obtain  satisfaction  by  any  force  or  violence. 

11.— Act  of  March  3, 1799,  Sec.  4  {1  Stat.  L.,  744). 

And  he  it  further  enacted,  That  if  any  such  citizen  or  yjerson  shall  go  into  any  town,  set- 
tlement, or  territory  belonging  or  secured  by  treaty  with  the  United  States  to  any  nation 
or  tribe  of  Indians,  and  shall  there  commit  robbery,  larceny,  trespass,  or  other  crime 
against  the  person  or  property  of  any  friendly  Indian  or  Indians,  which  would  be  punish- 
able if  committed  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any  State  against  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  or  unauthorized  by  law,  and  with  a  hostile  intention,  shall  be  found  on  any  Indian 
land,  such  offender  shall  forfeit  a  sum  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars  and  be 
imprisoned  not  exceeding  twelve  months ;  and  shall  also,  when  property  is  taken  or 
destroyed,  forfeit  and  pay  to  such  Indian  or  Indians  to  whom  the  property  taken  and 
destroyed  belongs  a  sum  equal  to  twice  the  just  value  of  the  property  so  taken  or  destroyed; 
and  if  such  offender  shall  be  unable  to  pay  a  sum  equal  at  least  to  the  said  just  value, 
whatever  such  payment  shall  fall  short  of  the  said  just  value  shall  be  paid  out  of  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States ;  provided,  nevertheless,  that  no  such  Indian  shall  be  entitled 
to  any  payment  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  for  any  such  property  taken  or 
destroyed  if  he,  or  any  of  the  nation  to  which  he  belongs,  shall  have  sought  private 
revenge  or  attempted  to  obtain  satisfaction  by  any  force  or  violence. 

111.— Act  of  March  30, 1802,  Sec.  4  {%  Stat.  L.,  I4I). 

And  he  it  further  enacted.  That  if  any  such  citizen,  or  other  person,  shall  go  into  any 
town,  settlement,  or  territory  belonging  or  secured  by  treaty  with  the  United  States  to 
any  nation  or  tribe  of  Indians,  and  shall  there  commit  robbery,  larceny,  trespass,  or  other 
crime  against  the  person  or  property  of  any  friendly  Indian  or  Indians  which  would  be 
punishable  if  committed  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any  State  against  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  or  unauthorized  by  law,  and  with  a  hostile  intention,  shall  be  found  on  any 
Indian  land,  such  offender  shall  forfeit  a  sum  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars  and  be 
imprisoned  not  exceeding  twelve  months;  and  shall  also,  when  property  is  taken  or 
destroyed,  forfeit  and  pay  to  such  Indian  or  Indians  to  whom  the  property  taken  and 
destroyed  belongs  a  sum  equal  to  twice  the  just  value  of  the  property  so  taken  or 
destroyed ;  and  if  smch  offender  shall  be  unable  to  pay  a  sum  at  least  equal  to  the  said 
just  value,  whatever  such  payment  shall  fall  short  of  the  said  just  value  shall  be  paid  out 
of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States;  provided,  nevertheless,  that  no  such  Indian  shall  be 
entitled  to  any  payment  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  for  such  property  taken 
or  destroyed  if  he,  or  any  of  the  nation  to  which  he  belongs,  shall  have  sought  private 
revenge  or  attempted  to  obtain  satisfaction  by  any  force  or  violence. 

lY.—Act  of  June  30, 1834,  Sec.  16  (4  Stat.  L.,  731). 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  where,  in  the  commission  by  a  white  person  of  any  crime, 
offense,  or  misdemeanor  within  the  Indian  country,  the  property  of  any  friendly  Indian 
is  taken,  injured,  or  destroyed,  and  a  conviction  is  had  for  such  crime,  offense,  or  misde- 
meanor, the  person  so  convicted  shall  be  sentenced  to  pay  to  such  friendly  Indian  to 
whom  the  property  may  belong,  or  whose  person  may  be  injured,  a  sum  equal  to  twice 
the  just  value  of  the  property  so  taken,  injured,  or  destroyed  ;  and  if  such  offender  shall 
be  unable  to  pay  a  sum  at  least  equal  to  the  just  value  or  amount,  whatever  such  pay- 
ment shall  fall  short  of  the  same  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  ; 
provided,  that  no  such  Indian  shall  be  entitled  to  any  payment  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States  for  any  such  property  if  he,  or  any  of  the  nation  to  which  he  belongs,  shall 
have  sought  private  revenge  or  attempted  to  obtain  satisfaction  by  any  force  or  violence ; 
and  provided,  also,  that  if  such  offender  cannot  be  apprehended  and  brought  to  trial,  the 
amount  of  such  property  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  Treasury,  as  aforesaid. 

V. — Sections  2154  and  2155,  Revised  Statutes. 


Whenever,  in  the  commission  by  a  white  person  of  any  crime,  offense,  or  misdemeanor 
within  the  Indian  country,  the  property  of  any  friendly  Indian  is  taken,  injured,  or 
destroyed,  and  a  conviction  is  had  for  such  crime,  offense,  or  misdemeanor,  the  person  so 
convicted  shall  be  sentenced  to  pay  to  such  friendly  Indian  to  whom  the  property  may 
belong,  or  whose  person  may  be  injured,  a  sum  equal  to  twice  the  just  value  of  the  prop- 
erty so  taken,  injured,  or  destroyed. 


416 

If  such  offender  shall  be  unable  to  pay  a  sum  at  least  equal  to  the  just  value  or  amount, 
whatever  such  payment  shall  fall  short  of  the  same  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  Treasury  of 
the  United  States.  If  such  offender  cannot  be  apprehended  and  brought  to  trial, "the 
amount  of  such  property  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  Treasury ;  but  no  Indian  shall  be  entitled 
to  any  payment  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  for  any  such  property  if  he,  or 
any  of  the  nation  to  which  he  belongs,  have  sought  private  revenge,  or  have  attempted  to 
obtain  satisfaction  by  any  force  or  violence. 

Appendix  C. 
special  legislation.— appropriations  for  indian  depredation  claims. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  special  appropriations  for  payment  of  Indian  depredation 
claims.  In  each  case  it  is  stated  whether  payment  is  to  be  made  from  the  Treasury  or 
from  the  Indian  annuities.  The  total  of  amounts  appropriated  from  the  Treasurv  is 
$1,604,028  25;  the  total  appropriated  from  Indian  annuities  is  |201,316  37.  But  these  totals 
do  not  embrace  the  sums  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  by  several  Acts  (March  2, 1827 ; 
May  31,  1830;  June  30,  1834),  in  which  the  amounts  are  not  specified. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1819  (Section  5,  3  Statutes,  517),  $4,000  is  appropriated  from  the 
Treasury  to  satisfy  claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  for  property  stolen  or  destroyed 
by  the  Osages. 

By  Act  of  March  2,  1827  (6  Statutes,  361),  William  Morrison,  late  contractor  for  supplies 
to  the  Army,  is  allowed  credit  (out  of  the  Treasury)  for  sixty-nine  beef  cattle  taken  from 
near  the  military  post  of  Prairie  Du  Chien,  in  July,  1816,  by  certain  predatory  tribes  of 
Indians. 

By  Act  of  March  25,  1830  (6  Statutes,  408),  the  Secretary  of  War  is  directed  to  pay  $6,703 
from  the  Treasury  to  four  persons  for  property  taken  by  the  Osage  Indians  from  1816  to 
1823. 

By  Act  of  May  31,  1830  (4  Statutes,  428),  certain  depredation  claims  are  referred  to  the 
Third  Auditor  to  be  decided  according  to  the  provisions  of  Section  14  of  the  Act  of  March 
30,  1802,  the  money  to  be  paid  out  of  the  Treasury. 

By  Act  of  March  2,  1831  (4  Statutes,  470),  $1,300  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  for 
payment  of  su.ndry  claims  for  Indian  depredations. 

By  Act  of  June  28,  1834  (4  Statutes,  705),  $7,800  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
defray  the  expense  of  investigating  claims  against  the  Seminoles  for  property  stolen  or 
destroyed  by  them  and  for  liquidating  such  as  may  be  satisfactorily  established. 

By  Act  of  June  30, 1834  (4  Statutes,  721),  payment  not  exceeding  $250,000  is  granted  out 
of  the  Treasury  to  citizens  of  Georgia  for  claims  founded  upon  the  capture  and  detention 
or  destruction  of  property  by  Creek  Indians  prior  to  the  Act  of  March  30,  1802. 

By  Act  of  June  30,  1834  (6  Statutes,  581),  certain  claims  for  Indian  depredations  are 
referred  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  who  is  directed  to  pay  out  of  the  Treasury  all  which 
shall  be  established. 

By  Act  of  July  1, 1836  (6  Statutes  659),  $403  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to  James 
Alexander,  and  $575  to  Ira  Nash,  for  losses  sustained  and  depredations  committed  by  Sac 
and  Fox  Indians  in  1814. 

By  Act  of  July  2, 1836  (6  Statutes,  671),  the  Secretary  of  War  is  directed  to  pay  to  Joseph 
Bogy  $6,000  from  the  Indian  annuities  for  his  merchandise  and  property  taken  or  destroyed 
by  the  Choctaw  Indians  in  1807. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1837  (5  Statutes,  158-162),  the  President  is  directed  to  report  to  Con- 
gress as  to  depredations  committed  by  the  Seminoles  and  Creeks,  before  and  after  the 
resent  Indian  war. 

By  Act  of  March  3, 1841  (6  Statutes,  822),  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  directed  to  pay 
out  of  the  Treasury,  to  Avery,  Saltmarsh  &  Co.,  mail  contractors,  $9,779  for  property 
employed  by  them  in  transporting  the  mail,  captured  and  destroyed  lay  the  Creek  Indians 
in  May,  1836. 

By  Act  of  June  15,  1844  (6  Statutes,  913),  the  Secretary  of  War  is  directed  to  pay  to  George 
Wallis  $3,000  out  of  the  Indian  annuities,  for  the  destruction  of  cattle  belonging  to  the 
said  Wallis,  by  the  Sac  and  Fox  and  Iowa  Indians. 

By  Act  of  August  9,  1846  (9  Statutes,  24  Private),  $1,500  is  appropriated  from  the  Indian 
annuities  to  pay  to  the  legal  representatives  of  Cyrus  Turner  for  depredations  committed 
by  Sioux  Indians. 

By  Act  of  March  2,  1847  (9  Statutes,  41  Private),  $1,081  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Elijah  White  and  others  for  property  taken  by  the  Pawnee  Indians. 

By  Act  of  March  3, 1847  (9  Statutes,  41  Private),  $676  *91  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Joseph  E.  Primeau  and  Thomas  J.  Chapman  for  depredations  committed  by  Yank- 
ton Indians. 

By  Act  of  August  14, 1848  (9  Statutes,  90  Private),  $800  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Charles  N.  Gibson  for  a  wagon  captured  and  destroyed  by  the  Seminole  Indians  in 
Middle  Florida  in  February,  1839. 

By  Act  of  March  3, 1849(9  Statutes,  141  Private),  $4,155  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pav  Thomas  Talbot  and  others  for  property  taken  by  the  Pawnee  Indians. 

By^Act  of  August  30,  1852  (10  Statutes,  41,  55),  $1,200  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  James  M.  Marsh  for  losses  for  property  taken  by  the  Sioux  Indians  while  extending 
the  line  of  surveys  under  contract. 


417 

By  Act  of  January  18,  1855  (10  Statutes,  843),  $500  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
pay  Moses  D.  Hogan  for  cattle  taken  by  the  Indians. 

i5y  Act  of  August  18,  1856  (11  Statutes,  65,  81),  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  ordered 
to  investigate  claims  for  depredations  by  Indians  in  New  Mexico. 

By  Act  of  March  16,  1858  (11  Statutes,  527,  the  sum  of  $200,  with  interest  from  the  first 
day  of  June,  1852,  was  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to  pay  John  Hamilton,  of  Cham- 
paign County,  Ohio,  for  his  time  and  services  during  his  imprisonment  with  the  Indians 
in  the  war  of  1812  with  Great  Britain. 

By  Act  of  June  19,  1860  (12  Statutes,  44,  58),  $16,679  74  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  for  the  loss  and  destruction  of  property  of  citizens  of  Minnesota  and  Iowa  at 
Spirit  Lake  in  1857,  by  Sioux  Indians. 

By  Act  of  March  2,  1861  (12  Statutes,  203),  $9,640  74  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  indemnify  citizens  of  Iowa  and  Minnesota  for  destruction  of  property  at  or  near  Spirit 
Lake  by  Inkpadutah's  band  of  Sioux  Indians. 

By  iLct  of  February  16,  1863  (12  Statutes,  652,  658),  provision  is  made  for  payment  out  of 
their  forfeited  annuities  for  damages  done  by  Sioux  Indians  in  Minnesota  on  the  occasion 
of  the  Sioux  massacre  in  1862, 

By  Act  of  May  28,  1864  (13  Statutes,  92),  $928,411  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
paj'  the  awards  of  the  commission  under  the  act  of  February  16,  1883,  for  damages  done 
by"^the  Sioux  Indians  in  1862,  and  a  further  sum  of  $241,963  is  appropriated  for  additional 
claims. 

By  Act  of  June  29,  1866  (14  Statutes,  609),  $28,175  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  for 
Elizabeth  Woodward  and  George  Chorpenning  for  destruction  of  property  by  Indians  in 
1862,  and  by  the  second  section  of  the  same  Act  $26,370  is  appropriated  from  the  Indian 
annuities  to  pay  George  Chorpenning  for  property  destroyed  by  Indians  prior  to  April  1, 
1856. 

By  Act  of  March  2,  1868  (15  Statutes,  356),  $400  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to  the 
widow  of  Maj.  Gen.  I.  B.  Richardson  for  one  mule  and  four  horses  stolen  from  him  by 
Apache  Indians  while  on  military  dutv  in  New  Mexico. 

By  Act  of  April  10,  1869  (16  Statutes,  13, 39),  $10,906  34  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  for  depredations  committed  by  Indians  in  Northwestern  Iowa,  in  1857. 

By"^Act  of  February  27,1871  (16  Statutes,  704),  $2,564  10  is  appropriated  out  of  any  money 
appropriated  for  the  benefit  of  the  Cheyenne  and  Arapaho  Indians,  to  Lucy  A.  Smith,  for 
losses  by  depredations  of  said  Indians  in  Nebraska. 

By  Act  of  May  7,  1872  (17  Statutes,  395),  commissioners  are  appointed  to  examine  into 
depredations  committed  by  Indians  and  Mexicans  in  Texas. 

By  Act  of  May  21,  1872  (17  Statutes,  661),  $14,650  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
indemnifv  Charles  F.  Tracy  for  depredations  committed  by  Apaches  in  May,  1870. 

By  Act''of  June  5,  1872  (17  Statutes,  675),  $10,000  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
pav  Mrs.  Fanny  Kelly  for  property  taken  and  destroved  by  Sioux  Indians  in  1864. 

By  Act  of  June  10,  1872  (17  Statutes,  690),  $30,000  is' appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
pay  the  heirs  of  Alexander  Watson  for  property  lost,  captured,  or  destroyed  in  Florida 
duVing  the  Indian  hostilities  commencing  in  1835. 

By  Act  of  June  10,  1872  (17  Statutes,  701),  $13,200  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
Elbridge  Gerry  for  valuable  services  rendered  the  Government  in  1864,  and  for  all  claims 
for  Indian  depredations  up  to  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this  Act. 

By  xVct  of  March  3,  1873  (17  Statutes,  766),  $2,250  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
Mrs.  Ann  Marble,  administratrix,  for  losses  by  depredations  by  Cheyenne  Indians. 

By  Act  of  April  28,  1874  (18  Statutes,  543),  $1,095  37  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Mrs.  Siloma  Deck  for  losses  by  depredations  by  Sioux  Indians  in  1852. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1875  (18  Statutes,  424),  $2,500  each  is  appropriated  to  Adelaide 
German  and  Julia  German,  two  white  children  captured  in  Kansas,  the  same  to  be  with- 
held from  annuities  due  the  Cheyennes. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1877  (19  Statutes,  549),  $2,283  92  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pav  Hans  C.  Peterson  for  damages  by  Sioux  Indians  in  Minnesota  in  1862. 

By  Act  of  March  3, 1879  (20  Statutes,  396),  $2,915  with  interest  at  7  per  cent  is  appropriated 
from  any  treaty  funds  of  the  Kiowa  Indians,  to  the  heirs  of  Abel  S.  Lee  for  property 
taken  and  destroyed  by  the  Kiowa  Indians  in  1872. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1879  (20  Statutes,  390),  $5,000  is  appropriated  out  of  any  money 
hereafter  appropriated  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  Cheyenne  Indians,  to  Mrs.  Celia  C 
Short. 

By  Act  of  June  8,  1880  (21  Statutes,  549),  $15,867  50  is  appropriated  to  pay  Henry  Warren 
for  damages  sustained  by  depredations  of  Indians  in  1871,  while  Warren  was  a  Govern- 
ment contractor,  the  same  to  be  withheld  from  the  annuities  due  the  Indians. 

By  Act  of  June  16,  1880  (21  Statutes,  588),  $2,000  is  appropriated  from  the  annuities  due 
the  Cheyenne  or  Arapaho  Indians  to  Amanda  M.  Cook,  whose  mother  was  killed  and 
herself  captured  by  the  Indians  in  1865. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1881  (21  Statutes,  eAO),  $58,659  46  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Dodd,  Brown  &  Co.,  assignees  of  E.  M.  Durfee  &  Co.,  and  others,  for  depredations 
committed  by  various  tribes  of  Indians,  the  amounts  to  be  deducted  from  the  annuities. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1881  (21  Statutes,  640),  $3,600  is  appropriated  from  money  belonging 
to  the  Osage  Indians  to  pay  William  Redus  for  depredations  committed  by  these  Indians. 

By  Act  of  May  17,  1882  "(22  Statutes,  86),  $9,870  10  is  appropriated  from  unexpended 
balances  of  treaty  funds  to  pay  various  claimants  for  damages  caused  by  raids  of  North- 
ern Cheyennes. 

27- 


418 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1883  (22  Statutes,  804),  $12,200  is  appropriated  from  moneys  due  the 
Cheyenne  and  Arapaho  Indians  to  Powers  &  Newman,  and  D.  and  B.  Powers  for  depre- 
dations committed  by  these  Indians. 

By  Act  of  March  20,  1884  (23  Statutes,  525),  $5,400  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Louisa  Boddy  for  depredations  committed  by  the  Modoc  Indians. 

By  Act  of  March  3, 1885  (23  Statutes,  498),  $46,770  21  is  appropriated  to  pay  W.  C.  Oburn 
out  of  annuities  for  depredations  committed  by  the  Cheyenne  and  Arapaho  Indians. 


Appendix  D. 

Indiak  Treaties  Making  Provisions  as  to   Payment  Out  of  Annuities  for  Depreda- 
tions Committed  on  the  Property  of  White  Men. 

[The  references  by  pages  are  to  the  "  Revision  of  Indian  Treaties,"  1873.] 


Tribks. 


Date. 


Page. 


Blackf  eet 

Calapooias 

Chastas 

Cherokees 

Cherokees 

Cheyennes  and  Arapahoes 

North  Cheyennes  and  North  Arapahoes 

Chippewas  (see  note  a  below) 

Comanches  and  Wichitas 

Comanches,  Kiowas,  Apaches 

Comanches,  Kiowas 

Crows 

Dwamish  and  Squamish 

Flatheads 

Kansas  (see  note  b  below) 

Kansas .-- 

Kiowas,  Katakas,  etc. 

Makahs --- 

Navajos  - 

Nes  Percys 

Nisquallies,  Puyallups 

Omahas 

Osages  (see  note  c  below)... 

Osages  (see  noted  below) 

Osages  (see  note  e  below) 

Oregon,  Middle 

Otoes  and  Missourias 

Pawnees 

Poncas 

Quapaws 

Quinaielts,  etc 

Sacs  and  Foxes 

S'Klallams 

Snakes 

Sioux,  Yanktons 

Sioux,  Mendawakanton,  Wahpakosta 

Sioux,  Sisseton,Wahpeton-.. 

Sioux,  Brul6,  Ogallalla 

Shoshones,  Eastern  and  Bannocks 

Utahs 

Umpquas  and  Calapooias 

Utes 

Walla  Wallas  and  Cayuses 

Yakamas -. 


April  25, 1856 

April  10, 1855 

April  10, 1855 

January  21,  1795  . 
October  2,  1798... 
August  19, 1868... 
August  25, 1868 ... 

May    5,1864 

May  19,  1836 

February  12,  1854 
August  25, 1868... 
July  25,  1868  ..... 

April  11, 1859 

April  18, 1859 

December  30,  1825 
December  30,  1825 
February  21, 1838. 

April  18,^  1859 

August  12, 1818... 

April  29, 1859 

March  3,  1855 

June  21,  1854 

January  7,  1819  .. 
December  30,  1825 

March  2,  1839 

April  19, 1859 

June  21,  1854 

May  26,  1858 

April  11,1859 

July  15, 1818 

April  11, 1859 

February  12, 1823. 

April  29, 1859 

July  10,  1866 

February  26, 1859. 
March  31,  1859  .... 
March  31,  1859  .... 
February  24, 1869. 
February  24, 1869- 
December  14,  1864. 
March  30,  1855--.. 
November  6,1868.. 

April  11,1859 

April  18, 1859 


11 
6 
8 
4 
9 
1 
1 
4 
3,  5 
4,108 
1 
1 
9 
8 
7 

10 

;,  5,  7 

9 
1 


10 
1,  2 


10 

22 

25 

32 

35 

130 

136 

255 

304,  305 

310,  311 

319 

328 

381 

388,  389 

412 

413 

456,  457 

463,  464 

528 

537,  538 

563 

567,  568 

575,  576 

580 

584 

627 

640 

653 

664 

718 

726 

739 

■  803 

805 

861 

88,  89 

907 

914,  915 

932 

972 

980,  981 

983,  984 

992 

1,045 


717, 

725, 

738, 


a  The  United  States  agrees  to  appropriate  $100,000  to  pay  for  depredations  and  forcible  exactions. 
b  The  United  States  agrees  to  pay  for  all  depredations  since  1815. 

c  Depredations  committed  since  1814  are  to  be  paid   by  the  United  States,  in  consideration  of  the  cession  of 
Indian  lands. 
d  The  United  States  agrees  to  pay  for  all  depredations  since  1808. 
e  The  United  States  agrees  to  pay  all  depredation  claims. 


419 


Appendix  E. 

List  of  Treaties  by  which  the  Indians  Agree  to  Use  Their  Best  Efforts  to  Return 
Stolen  Property  or  to  Punish  Offenders. 

[The  references  by  pages  are  to  the  "Kevision  of  Indian  Treaties,"  1873.] 


Date. 


Article. 


Page. 


Belantse-Etoas,  etc 

Chippewas 

Chippewas - 

Comanches,  lonies,  Anadacas,  Caddoes,  etc. 

Crows 

Delawares -. - 

lowas 

Kaskaskias,  Peorias 

Klamath,  etc 

Kickapoos 

Makahs -.. 

Miamies 

Mandans 

Osages - .-. 

Osages • 

Otoes  and  Missourias 

Pawnees 

Poncas 

Ricaras 

Rogue  Rivers 

Sacs  and  Foxes 

Shawnees _. 

Sioux,  Yanktons,  Tetons,  Yanktonais 

Sioux,  Ogallallas 

Sioux,  Oncpapas 

Unipquas 

Winnebagoes... 


February  6,  1826 . 
January  29,  1855  . 

April?,  1855 

March  8,  1847.-. 
February  6, 1826  . 
February  14,  1805 

July  17,  1854 

August  10,  1854  . . 
February  17,  1870 

July  17,  1854 

February  6,  1826  . 
August  4,  1854  ... 
February  6,  1826  . 
December  26,  1815 
January  21,  1867  . 
February  6,  1826  . 
February  6,  1826  . 
February  6,  1826  . 
February  26,  1826 

April  12,  1854 

July  17,  1854 

November  2,  1854 
February  6,  1826. 
February  6,  1826  ., 
February  6,  1826  . 
February  5,  1855  . 
May23, 'L855 


14,  15 

225,  226 

270 

307 

326,  327 

336 

406 

429 

436 

447 

460 

519 

466 

573,  574 

588 

632 

643 

667,  668 

728,  729 

731,  732 

761,  762 

800 

868 

872,  873 

874,  875 

976 

1,010 


420 

Appendix  F. 

List  of  Treaties  by  which  it  is   Provided  that  the  Indians  Shall  be   Paid  by  thi 
Government  for  Depredations  Committed  on  Their  Property  by  White  Men. 

[The  references  by  pages  are  to  the  "Revision  of  Indian  Treaties,"  1873.] 


Tribes. 


Date. 


Article. 


Page. 


Blackf  eet 

Belantse-Etoas-- --. 

€herokees 

Creeks 

Cheyennes  and  Arapahoes 

Number  Cheyennes  and  number  Arapahoes 

Choctaws  and  Chickasaws 

Comanches  and  Wichitas 

Comanches,  Kiowas,  Apaches 

Comanches,  Kiowas. 

€rows -- 

Crows 

Kansas 

Kiowas,  Katakas,  etc. 

Makahs 

Mandans.- 

Navajoes 

Osages 

Otoes  and  Missourias 

Pawnees .-- 

Poncas 

Quapaws 

Kicaras 

Rogue  Rivers 

Sacs  and  Foxes 

Shawnees ..* 

Sioux,  Yanktons,  Tetons,  Yanktonais ._ 

Sioux,  Ogallallas 

Sioux,  Oncpapas 

Sioux,  Ogallallas,  Bruits 

Shoshones,  Eastern,  and  Bannocks -.. _ 

Utahs 

Umpquas -.. 

Utes 


April  25,  1856 

Februarys,  1826 

October  2,  1798 

August  28,  1856 

August  19,  1868 

August  25,  1868 

March  4,  1856 

May  19,  1836 

February  12,  1854... 

August  25,  1868 

February  6,  1826  .... 

July  25,  1868 

December  30,  1825... 
February  21,  1838... 

February  6, 1826 

February  6,  1826 

August  12,  1818 

December  26, 1815... 

February  6,  1826 

February  6,  1826 

February  6,  1826-.-. 

July  15,  1818 

February  26,  1825  . . . 

April  12,  1854 

February  12,  1823... 
November  2,  1854  ... 

Februarv6,  1826 

February  6,  1826 

February  6,  1826.... 
February  24,  1869  _.. 
February  24,  1869... 
December  14,  1864... 
February  5,  1855.-.. 
Novembers  1868  --. 


7 

9 

6 

14,  15 

9 

35 

18 

112 

1 

130 

1 

136 

14 

280 

3 

304 

4,108 

310,  311 

1 

319 

5 

326,  327 

1 

328 

10 

413 

3,  5,  7 

456,  457 

5 

460 

6 

466 

1 

528 

9 

573,  574 

5 

643 

5 

643 

5 

667,  668 

6 

717,  718 

6 

728,  729 

6 

731,  732 

5 

738,  739 

11 

799 

5 

868 

5 

872,  873 

5 

574,  575 

1 

914,  915 

1 

932 

6 

972 

6 

976 

6 

983,  984 

Appendix  G. 
expressions  of  opinion  in  debate,  senate  and  house  of  representatives. 

Senate. 
[Congressional  Globe,  Forty-first  Congress,  second  session,  part  5.] 

Mr.  Thayer  (page  4012)  : 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Iowa  and  the  honorable  Senator  from  Oregon  say  that 
in  some  cases  the  annuities  of  Indian  tribes  have  been  absorbed  in  meeting  these  claims. 
I  tell  those  two  Senators  that  the  property,  the  all  of  settlers  on  the  frontier  has  been 
destroyed  by  Indians;  and  I  say  to  them  also  that  the  way  to  produce  an  effect  upon  the 
Indians  is  by  letting  them  know  that  if  they  commit  these  depredations  their  annuities 
shall  be  taken  to  pay  for  them.  That  is  the  only  way  in  which  you  will  reach  them. 
That  is  the  only  way  in  which  you  will  have  an  effect  on  the  Indians  and  compel  them 
to  cease  their  depredations  on  the  settlers.  The  last  remedy  for  a  man  whose  property, 
whose  crops,  whose  horses,  and  whose  cattle  have  been  taken  from  him  by  Indians  is  to 
tell  him  to  come  to  Congress  and  wait  until  the  day  of  doom  before  he  can  get  satisfac- 
tion or  compensation.    I  trust  that  this  whole  section  will  be  stricken  out. 


Mr.  Tipton  (page  4012)  : 

Every  Senator  here  who  knows  anything  about  the  new  States  knows  that  when  a 
band  of  savages  pass  through  our  borders,  or  when  the  Indians  who  are  on  the  reserva- 
tions pass  through  our  States,  there  is  nothing  that  protects  the  property  of  the  settler 


421 

so  well  as  a  consciousness  on  the  part  of  the  chiefs  and  the  head  men  of  the  Indians  that 
if  the  stock  of  the  settler  is  killed,  if  his  crops  are  destroyed,  their  annuities  may  be 
reached  and  they  will  feel  it  in  their  pockets.  Nothing  so  completely  gives  protection  to 
the  settler  as  that.  Then,  when  their  young  men  spread  upon  the  prairies  and  roam 
about  at  will,  when  they  come  upon  the  cabin  of  a  settler  and  his  property  is  entirely  in 
their  power,  they  will  have  been  warned  by  those  in  authority  over  them  not  to  touch  it 
or  the  value  of  the  property  will  be  taken  out  of  their  annuities.  1  tell  you  that  gives  us 
more  protection  when  they  pass  through  our  inhabited  counties  and  portions  of  our 
States  than  anything  else  that  you  can  devise.  But  let  it  be  understood  that  if  they 
commit  depredations,  those  who  complain  of  them,  if  they  can  make  a  case,  may  come  to 
Congress  and  get  their  pay  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  and  who  cares 
what  depredations  are  then  committed?  I  say  that  unless  this  section  be  stricken  out, 
or  so  amended  that  the  redress  shall  be  direct  upon  the  tribe  or  upon  the  annuities  of  the 
tribe,  we  shall  have  very  little  protection. 

Mr.  Williams  (page  4219)  : 

It  is  a  mistaken  policy,  in  my  judgment,  that  undertakes  to  throw  around  these 
Indian  tribes  the  protection  of  law  in  robbery,  a  thing  which  they  will  understand  just  as 
well  as  white  men.  It  will  not  be  long  before  the  Indians  will  know  that  they  can  with 
impunity  make  inroads  upon  the  white  settlers  and  steal  their  horses  and  cattle,  and 
carry  them  away  and  make  use  of  them,  and  that  there  is  no  remedy  for  the  white 
persons  so  injured. 

House  of  Representatives. 

[Congressional  Globe,  Forty-first  Congress,  second  session,  part  6.] 

Mr.  Degener  (page  5009)  : 

I  am  not  a  lawyer,  but  common  sense  teaches  me  that  if  any  person  dhooses  to  keep  a 
dangerous  animal  on  his  premises,  say  a  rattlesnake  in  his  room,  if  he  chooses  to  feed  it 
chooses  to  provide  a  warm  blanket  for  that  rattlesnake,  so  that  it  may  not  suffer  from 
cold,  and  if  he  does  not  choose  to  extract  the  poisonous  fangs  of  that  animal,  then  he 
becomes  responsible  should  that  rattlesnake  escape  from  his  room  and  go  upon  the  prem- 
ises of  his  neighbor  and  there  bite  his  neighbor,  or  his  neighbor's  wife,  or  children,  or  his 
cattle.    I  believe  common  sense  teaches  us  that  that  is  the  correct  principle. 

Mr.  Wilkinson  (page  5010)  :  >  • 

The  principle  is  essentially  just,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  changing  the  existing  law 
except  the  clamor  which  has  arisen  on  account  of  the  reputation  that  the  Indian  Depart- 
ment has  had  before  the  country.  If  the  Indian  Department  stood  as  well  before  the 
country  as  the  Treasury  Department  there  is  not  a  man  in  this  House  who  would  think 
of  making  the  change  proposed  by  this  amendment. 

Mr.  Paine  (page  5011)  : 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  desirable,  if  possible,  to  so  regulate  the  payment  of  our  annui- 
ties to  the  Indians  that  we  may  avoid  the  difficulties,  the  animosities,  and  the  troubles 
that  will  be  sure  to  grow  out  of  the  collection  of  false  and  fictitious  and  sham  claims 
against  the  Indians.  If  there  were  an  absolute  certainty  that  only  just  claims  would 
be  presented  against  these  Indians,  if  we  were  sure  that  only  the  claims  of  honest 
frontiersmen  whose  property  had  actually  been  destroyed  or  stolen  would  be  presented 
and  paid  out  of  the  moneys  which  would  otherwise  be  devoted  to  the  payment  of  these 
annuities,  then  I  would  have  no  hesitation  in  allowing  the  law  to  stand  as  it  now  is.  But 
there  is  the  danger  that,  by  permitting  the  law  to  stand  as  it  now  is,  we  shall  give  encour- 
agement to  the  prosecution  of  unjust  claims.  I  believe  everybody  understands  that  it 
has  been  true  that  large  numbers  of  outrageous  claims  have  been  presented  against  the 
Indians;  demands  made  by  men  who  set  themselves  deliberately  to  work  to  trump  up 
claims  upon  no  substantial  foundation,  for  the  purpose  of  robbing  these  Indians.  On  the 
whole,  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  that  difficulty,  I  am  willing  to  encounter  another. 

Senate. 

[Congressional  Record,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  session,  vol.  16,  part  2.] 

Mr.  Plumb  (page  1717)  : 

******* 
'    While  I  say  that,  I  am  as  earnest  as  any  one  can  be  in  favor  of  the  Government  adopt- 
ing a  rule  which  shall  result  in  the  payment  of  what  I  regard  as  justly  an  obligation 


422 

against  the  Government  as  any  other  one  which  it  is  called  upon  to  respond  to.  There 
are  millions  of  dollars,  I  believe,  certainly  many  hundreds  of  thovisands  of  dollars,  which 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  owes  to  claimants  all  over  the  country.  I  have  no 
doubt  the  case  of  which  the  Senator  from  California  speaks  is  one,  to  a  certain  extent  at 
all  events;  possibly  there  may  be  some  doubt  about  the  amount;  but  in  all  those  cases 
there  ought  to  be  a  tribunal  provided  for  the  ascertainment  of  the  amount  due.  I  intro- 
duced a  bill  years  ago,  and  have  reintroduced  it,  to  have  an  auditing  of  these  claims  in 
order  that  they  might  come  before  Congress  not  as  objects  of  suspicion,  but  upon  their 
true  footing  as  genuine  existing  liabilities  against  the  Government,  and  having  had  all 
the  scrutiny  that  they  ought  to  have  preceding  their  allowance.  The  Committee  on 
Appropriations,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  about  this  result,  seized  upon  an  amendment 
offered  to  the  bill  in  the  House  and  so  reframed  it  as  they  believe  will  result  in  establish- 
ing the  validity  or  invalidity  of  these  claims  in  such  a  way  that  they  will  not  be  subject 
to  objection  any  longer. 

Mr.  Dawes  (page  1718)  : 

******* 

Instead  of  committing  the  United  States  to  the  payment  of  particular  claims  by  pay- 
ing fifteen  per  cent  upon  them  and  letting  all  this  vast  amount  remain  back  waiting  for 
that  provision  to  go  through,  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  have  proposed  on  page 
47  of  the  bill,  this  amendment  which  I  beg  leave  to  read : 

******* 

"  For  the  investigation  of  certain  Indian  depredation  claims,  $10,000;  and  in  expend- 
ing said  sum  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  shall  cause  a  complete  list  of  all  claims  hereto- 
fore filed  in  the  Interior  Department  and  which  have  been  approved  in  whole  or  in  part 
and  now  remain  unpaid,  and  also  all  such  claims  as  are  pending  but  not  yet  examined, 
on  behalf  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  on  account  of  depredations  committed,  charge- 
able against  any  tribe  of  Indians  by  reason  of  any  treaty  between  such  tribe  and  the 
United  States,  including  the  name  and  address  of  the  claimants,  the  date  of  the  alleged 
depredations,  by  what  tribe  committed,  the  date  of  examination  and  approval,  with  a 
reference  to  the  date  and  clause  of  the  treaty  creating  the  obligation  for  payment,  to  be 
made  and  presented  to  Congress  at  its  next  regular  session;  and  the  Secretary  is  author- 
ized and  empowered,  before  making  such  report,  to  cause  such  additional  investigation 
to  be  made  and  such  further  testimony  to  be  taken  as  he  may  deem  necessary  to  enable 
him  to  determine  the  kind  and  value  of  all  property  damaged  or  destroyed  by  reason  of 
the  depredations  aforesaid,  and  by  what  tribes  such  depredations  were  committed ;  and 
his  report  shall  include  his  determination  upon  each  claim,  together  with  the  names  and 
residences  of  witnesses  and  the  testimony  of  each,  and  also  what  funds  are  now  existing 
or  to  be  derived  by  reason  of  treaty  or  other  obligation  out  of  which  the  same  should 

be  paid." 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  required  to  pass  upon  these  claims.  He  has  passed 
upon  them  in  the  past  in  the  manner  which  I  have  suggested.  He  has  not  had  the 
money  to  send  anybody  into  the  Territories  where  it  has  been  alleged  that  these  depreda- 
tions have  been  made.  He  has  the  power  under  the  statute,  but  he  has  not  had  the 
money ;  he  has  had  no  men  that  he  could  pay  for  that  purpose.  Therefore,  whenever  a 
man  sent  his  claim  up  here  or  referred  it  to  the  agent  of  the  tribe,  when  the  agent  of  the 
tribe  got  the  affidavits  furnished  by  the  claimant  and  sent  them  up  here  without  any 
hearing  or  cross-examination  whatever,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  has  written 
"  approved ;"  and  the  claims  come  to  Congress,  thirty-one  hundred  of  them  in  a  single  letter, 
amounting  to  more  than  a  million  and  a  half  dollars,  and  a  dozen  of  them  were  put  upon 
a  single  page  in  this  bill  by  the  other  branch  with  a  stipulation  that  only  fifteen  per  cent 
should  be  paid.  Fifteen  per  cent  of  them  would  take  twice  as  much  as  the  very  Indians 
upon  whom  they  are  charged  have  got  in  the  Treasury;  and  we  are  called  upon  in  this 
bill  independent  of  that,  to  appropriate  some  $25,000  to  support  and  feed  these  very 
Indians.  ^ 

I  submit  that  the  safest  way  is  the  one  proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Appropria- 
tions, and  that  any  other  way  is  unsafe,  unfair  to  other  claimants,  invidious,  unjust,  and 
groundless  discrimination  in  favor  of  these  claims. 

Mr.  Coke  (page  1719): 

I  think,  Mr.  President,  that  a  proper  measure  of  justice  to  the  claimants  who  have 
suffered  from  Indian  depredations  would  suggest  to  the  committee  and  to  the  Senate 
that  the  claims  which  have  been  investigated  under  Acts  of  Congress  prescribing  the 
mode  and  manner  of  their  investigation,  which  are  on  file  in  the  Interior  Department, 
and  have  been  reported  to  Congress  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  approved  by  him  as 
just  and  honest  claims,  should  be  embraced  in  this  bill,  and  appropriations  made  to  pay 
them.  The  committee  propose  by  their  amendment  that  they  shall  be  reinvestigated. 
Why  reinvestigate  claims  which  have  already  been  fully  investigated  ?  We  must  pre- 
sume that  they  have  been  fully  investigated,  because  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  the 
Commissioner  of  Indian  Afftiirs,  the  agents  and  superintendents  over  the  Indians,  all 
had  authority  to  make  the  investigations,  to  summon  witnesses  and  take  depositions,  and 


423 

upon  their  investigation,  presumably  correctly  made,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  has 
reported  a  large  number  of  these  claims,  belonging  chiefly  in  Kansas,  Colorado,  and 
Texas,  as  just  and  approved  by  him 

The  committee  now  propose  to  reinvestigate  those  claims  after  a  lapse  of  from  fifteen 
to  twenty  years,  when  all  the  testimony  has  gone,  possibly  when  the  facts  upon  which 
the  claims  are  founded  are  necessarily  obscured  from  loss  of  testimony  and  death  of 
witnesses.    There  is  no  justice  in  such  a  course. 

The  people  of  the  frontier  States  knew  that  they  had  no  recourse  against  the  Indians, 
except  what  Congress  gave  them,  and  Congress  in  the  Acts  to  which  I  have  referred  pre- 
scribed certain  methods  which  they  have  pursued.  They  submitted  themselves  fully  to 
the  jurisdiction  prescribed  ;  and  now,  after  their  claims  have  been  approved  by  the  tribu- 
nal ax^pointed  by  Congress,  their  witnesses  dead  or  scattered,  they  are  to  be  called  upon  to 
again  come  forward  and  resubstantiate  the  same  claims  already  adjudicated  and  on  file 
in  the  Department  and  reported  approved  to  Congress. 

(Page  1720): 

1  know  something  about  these  claims  for  Indian  depredations.  I  know  that  the 
frontier  of  Texas  was  at  one  time  driven  back  seventy-five  miles  by  hostile  Indians  from 
the  Fort  Sill  Reservation,  where  they  were  under  the  care  and  control  and  management 
and  protection  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  The  people  of  Texas  dared  not 
go  upon  that  reservation  to  retaliate.  They  could  have  gone  there  and  wiped  out  the 
Indians,  but  the  United  States  Government  protected  them.  Whenever  a  full  moon 
shone  at  night  they  came  down  upon  Texas,  drove  off  cattle  and  horses,  burned  houses 
and  killed  and  scalped  men,  and  carried  women  and  children  into  captivity. 

I  know  that  this  was  the  case  for  live  years,  and  Mr.  Francis  A.  Walker,  who  was 
Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  in  his  book  upon  the  Indian  problem,  speaking  of  the 
improvement  of  the  Indians,  of  their  methods,  and  of  their  beginning  to  acquire  prop- 
erty, said  of  the  Comanches  and  Kiowas,  that  they  have  some  16,000  head  of  horses  and 
mules,  stolen  chiefly  from  Texas.  That  is  a  statement  in  the  History  of  the  Indian  Prob- 
lem, by  Mr.  Francis  A.  Walker. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  the  same  experience  was  realized  by  all  the  other  frontier  States. 
I  have  personal  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  until  the  State  of  Texas  organized  a  battalion 
of  State  troops  and  sent  them  to  the  frontier  and  protected  the  settlers  against  the  Indians, 
the  frontier  was  almost  abandoned.  I  know  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  men  in  Texas 
who  had  thousands  of  head  of  cattle  and  hundreds  of  head  of  horses,  who  lost  every 
dollar's  worth  of  property  they  had  by  the  depredations  of  those  Indians.  Yet  the  Sena- 
tor from  Massachusetts  would  cast  an  imputation  upon  the  justice  of  these  claims, 
examined  and  approved  as  they  have  been. 

Not  one  claim  in  twenty  has  been  filed  that  could  have  been  filed  in  the  Interior 
Department  from  Texas.  It  is  too  late  to  file  them  now;  the  parties  cannot  comply  with 
the  law ;  they  are  excluded.  Those  which  are  filed  represent  a  very  small  proportion  of 
the  claims  which  ought  to  have  been  filed  by  people  who  lost  nearly  everything  they  had 
by  the  depredations  of  Indians.  The  requirements  of  the  law  were  so  onerous  and  the 
people  were  so  hopeless  of  recovering  any  of  their  losses  that  but  few  .of  them  ever 
attempted  it.  The  principal  difficulty  was  to  identify  the,  Indians  or  the  tribe  to  which 
they  belonged,  without  which  the  law  promised  no  relief,  and  which  could  rarely  be 
done. 

Mr.  President,  I  believe  that  these  claims  which  have  been  reported  to  the  Interior 
Department,  and  which  have  been  investigated  and  have  been  approved  by  the  tribunal 
appointed  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  are  just  claims  and  ought  to  be  paid. 
I  believe  the  committee  should  take  every  one  of  these  claims  and  put  them  on  this 
appropriation  bill.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  as  justly  and  honestly  bound 
to  see  those  claims  paid  as  it  is  to  see  any  bond  it  has  ever  issued  paid.  The  Indians  are 
the  wards  of  the  Government.  There  has  been  no  time  when  the  people  could  not  have 
protected  themselves  had  they  been  permitted  to  do  it,  and  failing  to  restrain  them  the 
Government  made  itself  responsible  for  the  depredations  of  the  Indians.  This  responsi- 
bility has  many  times  been  recognized  by  the  Government,  as  I  propose  on  another 
occasion  to  show. 

As  the  Senate  Committee  on  Appropriations  determined  that  they  would  not  appro- 
priate the  money  now  to  pay  these  claims,  that  they  would  not  put  these  claims  thus 
approved  and  reported  upon  this  bill,  then  I  believe  the  next  best  thing  for  them  to  do 
was,  as  the  committee  has  done,  require  a  full  report  of  all  these  claims  to  be  made  to 
Congress  at  the  next  session,  and  when  this  report  comes  in  and  we  see  what  they  all 
amount  to  I  shall  favor,  and  I  believe  that  the  honor  of  the  Government  will  require, 
that  Congress  shall  take  steps  to  liquidate  them  at  once.  I  do  not  see  why  those  who 
have  honest  claims  for  Indian  depredations  should  be  sneered  at.  They  are* the  pioneers 
of  the  country.  They  have  gone  westward  until  we  have  no  frontier  left,  blazing  the 
way  for  settlement  and  civilization. 

Mr.  Manderson  (page  1720): 

Mr.  President,  I  certainly  quite  agree  with  the  suggestions  made  by  the  Senator  from 
Texas  in  regard  to  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  pay  those  who  have  suffered  loss  on 


424 

the  frontier  of  the  country  by  reason  of  Indian  depredations,  and  I  wish  to  supplement 
his  suggestion  as  to  the  claims  mentioned  in  this  bill,  in  that  part  of  the  bill  which  has 
already  been  stricken  out  by  the  action  of  the  committee,  by  reading  from  a  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Claims.  It  was  stated  by  the  Senator  from  Tennessee  [Mr.  Jackson] 
that  the  claims  presented  in  this  bill  had  been  reported  adversely  by  the  committee. 
That  statement  is  truthful;  but  it  does  not  tell  all  the  truth.  The  inference  might  follow 
that  these  claims  were  rejected  because  of  lack  of  merit,  for  fraud,  or  because  the  parties 
had  not  suffered  the  losses  they  pretended  to  have  suffered;  but  that  is  not  the  tinding 
of  the  committee.  The  Committee  on  Claims,  following  the  action  of  the  Interior 
Department,  reports  as  to  these  claims,  and  I  read  from  the  report: 

"The  claimants  are  all  citizens  of  Texas,  generally  engaged  in  agriculture  or  stock 
raising,  quietly  and  peaceably  pursuing  their  avocations,  having  nothing  to  do  with  trade 
or  traflSc  with  the  Indians,  and  in  no  way  connected  with  any  disturbance  between  whites 
and  Indians,  there  or  elsewhere.  They  were  all  citizens  of  the  State  of  Texas,  and  while 
engaged  in  peaceful  pursuits  were  set  upon  by  bands  of  Indians  (who  were  supposed  to 
be  under  the  restraint  and  control  of  the  Government  on  their  reservations),  their  stock 
stampeded  and  driven  off,  and  other  property  destroyed  or  carried  away,  and  in  many 
cases  their  herders  killed  or  wounded.  They  have,  as  the  evidence  shows,  at  all  times 
refrained  from  any  violation  of  law"  by  taking  the  remedy  in  their  own  hands,  and  giving 
blow  for  blow,  but  have,  in  compliance  with  the  laws  which  Congress  has  from  time  to 
time  passed  for  their  protection  and  indemnity,  made  out  their  claims,  supported  them 
by  ample  proof,  both  as  to  quantity  and  value,  and  have  presented  them  to  the  officers 
designated  by  the  Government  to  examine  into  their  justness  and  the  truthfulness  of 
their  statements ;  and  those  officers,  after  having  sent  the  claims  to  the  agents  of  the 
different  tribes  to  be  presented  to  the  Indians  for  their  statements  in  regard  to  them,  and 
after  hearing  the  reports  of  those  agents,  and  making  a  careful  examination  of  the  proofs 
offered  by  the  claimants,  have  allowed  them  the  various  sums  for  payment  of  which  the 
claimants  now  ask  an  appropriation  by  Congress." 

So  that  these  claims  have  not  been  allowed  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior  upon 
mere  ex  parte  affidavits,  but  upon  full  investigation  and  with  a  chance  to  the  Indian 
themselves,  through  their  agents,  to  be  heard. 

They  are  taken  up  in  this  report,  and  although  the  committee  recognizes  their  merit 
and  the  obligation  upon  the  Government  to  pay  this  class  of  claims,  it  does  report 
adversely  to  them,  as  suggested  by  the  Senator  from  Tennessee,  in  this  language: 

As  stated  in  your  committee's  report  upon  the  claim  of  Overton  and  Love,  there  are 
a  large  number  of  these  claims,  equally  meritorious,  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Indian  Affairs.  No  good  reason  can  be  given  for  paying  the  claims  under  con- 
sideration without  paying  them  all.  This'  committee  cannot  recommend  the  passage  of 
such  claims  until  Congress  adopts  some  general  policy  of  dealing  with  all  these  claims. 

I  admit  that  the  suggestion  of  the  committee  is  a  wise  one.  AH  of  these  claims  should 
be  dealt  with,  but  year  after  year  rolls  by  and  they  are  not  paid.  In  my  own  State  I  know 
of  existing  claims,  as  valid  and  meritorious  as  those  that  are  stated  in  the  report,  that  are 
nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  old,  for  depredations  committed  by  Indians  upon  frontiers- 
men who  were  invited  by  the  Government  to  go  upon  Government  land,  and  these  men, 
driven  from  their  lands,  their  homes  destroyed,  and  in  frequent  instances  members  of 
their  familiea  killed  or  treated  worse  by  Indian  depredators,  remain  with  their  serious 
losses  yet  unpaid. 

I  submit,  Mr.  President,  that  it  is  a  crying  shame  that  these  claims  have  not  been 
paid. 

Mr.  Maxey  (page  1721): 

Mr.  President,  the  general  plan  for  efficient  and  prompt  settlement  of  outstanding 
claims  proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  I  think  is  wise;  but  I  submit  to 
that  committee  and  to  the  Senate  whether  there  is  any  reason  why,  because  they  propose 
to  adopt  that  plan,  the  claims  which  have  been  allowed  by  the  House  and  which  come  to 
us  as  approved  claims  shall  be  stricken  out  of  the  bill.  In  other  words,  the  law  has  always 
favored  the  vigilant.  If  gentlemen  who  have  claims  have  gone  to  the  labor  and  expense 
of  gathering  up  their  testimony,  of  laying  it  before  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  of  hav- 
ing their  claims  examined  and  approved  and  recommended  to  Congress,  and  Congress  in 
its  wisdom  allows  these  claims,  and  the  bill  comes  to  us  with  those  claims  thus  allowed,  I 
ask  if  there  is  any  reason  or  propriety  in  striking  out  all  the  claims  allowed,  as  found  on 
pages  8,  9,  10,  etc.,  of  the  bill  which  comes  to  us  from  the  House,  simply  because  a  pro- 
vision is  made  by  the  Appropriations  Committee  for  a  general  settlement  of  all  such 
claims  ?  If  the  claims  which  are  allowed  are  just  in  themselves,  and  the  Senator  in  charge 
of  this  bill  does  not  gainsay  that  proposition ;  if  they  are  right,  why  should  they  be  struck 
out  in  order  to  take  their  place  under  the  general  plan  of  settlement  when  they  have 
already  been  examined  and  approved  and  allowed  by  the  proper  committee  of  the  House 
as  just  and  proper  claims?  I  can,  therefore,  see  no  reason  why  these  claims  shall  be 
stricken  out,  nor  do  I  see  any  conflict  between  the  claims  which  are  allowed  by  the  House 
standing  as  a  part  of  this  bill,  and  the  proviso  which  is  put  in  by  the  Appropriations  Com- 
mittee of  the  Senate  in  respect  to  those  claims  which  are  not  as  yet  allowed,  or  have  not 
been  sent  up  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

"  Mr.  President,  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  Republic  that  there  be  an  end  of  litigation, 
and  if  these  men  have  had  any  claims  litigated  and  passed  upon  and  they  have  been  allowed 


425. 

by  the  House,  why  should  they  be  stricken  out  of  the  bill  by  the  Senate  ?  It  is  not  pre- 
tended that  they  are  not  just  claims.  If  there  was  a  shadow  of  suspicion  cast  on  the 
claims  there  would  be  some  reason  in  that,  but  there  is  none.  They  are  admitted  to  be 
just,  they  are  admitted  to  be  right,  but  they  are  simply  stricken  out  because  they  may 
conflict  with  the  plan  proposed  for  future  settlements.  These  claims  have  been  already 
settled,  why  should  they  be  relegated  to  the  future  to  be  settled  then  ?  I  cannot  see  any 
reason  for  that.    It  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  a  fair  proposition. 

Mr.  Miller  of  California  (page  1722): 

What  I  object  to  is  this  practice  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  which  is 
unbecoming  a  great  government,  interposing  technical  objections  to  shilly-shally  around 
and  put  off  payment  in  the  manner  of  a  bankrupt  debtor,  or  a  man  who  is  not  disposed 
to  pay  his  debts.  That  is  the  position  in  which  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  to-day 
are  putting  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  relation  to  the  citizens  who  hold  these 
claims.  That  there  is  an  obligation  to  pay  these  claims  out  of  the  funds  held  in  trust  by 
the  Government  belonging  to  the  Indians  there  can  be  no  doubt;  but  the  Committee  on 
Appropriations,  or  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  who  has  charge  of 
this  bill,  seems  to  desire  to  put  off  the  payment  continually.  It  is  so  year  after  year.  This 
process  has  been  going  on  for  a  great  many  years,  and  when  we  are  confronted  by  the 
condition  of  things,  then  we  invent  some  new  scheme,  some  new  plan  by  which  these 
claims  shall  be  put  off;  we  have  not  got  the  report  we  want,  or  there  is  something  lacking, 
and  a  man  who  has  vigilantly  prosecuted  his  claim  and  has  had  it  adjudicated,  and  the 
amount- found  due  shall  not  be  paid  because  somebody  who  has  not  used  the  time  dili- 
gently, and  whose  claim  has  not  been  adjudicated,  is  not  paid,  and  that  furnishes  a 
reason  why  the  man  who  has  a  just  claim  which  has  been  adjudicated  shall  not  be  paid. 
That  seems  to  me  a  strange  position  to  take.  I  cannot  see  why  when  a  claim  is  adjudi- 
cated and  found  to  be  due  this  great  Government  should  desire  to  put  off  the  day  of  pay- 
ment, and  to  bring  up  technical  and  other  objections  to  avoid  the  payment. 

I  will  go  further  and  say  that  I  am  in  favor  of  paying  all  just  and  adjudicated  claims 
of  this  class  out  of  the  Treasury.  I  believe  it  is  incumbent  on  the  Government  to  do  it. 
The  law  was  once  that  the  Government  was  required  to  pay  such  claims.  It  was  after- 
ward amended  so  that  the  payment  should  be  made  out  of  funds  belonging  to  the  Indians. 
To  refuse  to  pay  these  claims,  to  allow  the  Indians  to  commit  depredations  without  their 
being  required  to  pay,  or  the  Government  being  required  to  pay  the  resulting  damages  to 
property,  is  only  to  encourage  Indian  depredations  and  to  continue  the  practice.  If  a 
white  citizen  of  the  United  States  commits  a  depredation  on  the  Indians  he  must  pay 
double  the  amount  of  the  damage  sustained  by  the  Indians.  I  want  to  see  Indian  depre- 
dations stopped,  and  I  do  not  know  any  better  way  than  to  require  payment.  The  Gov- 
ernment is  bound  to  furnish  protection  to  its  citizens.  I  do  not  want  the  citizen  to  be 
paid  more  than  he  has  actually  suffered.  I  want  the  claim  to  be  just;  I  want  it  investi- 
gated thoroughly  and  completely,  and  adjudicated  in  every  phase  of  it  before  payment  is 
made.  I  contend  in  these  cases,  or  in  some  of  them  that  I  have  personal  knowledge  of 
at  any  rate,  there  has  been  such  an  investigation  and  such  an  adjudication,  and  there 
remains  no  doubt  about  the  bona  fides  or  justice  of  the  claims. 

Mr.  Maxey  (page  1723) : 

We  have  said  that  these  Indian  disturbances  were  not  wars,  that  Indians  were  not  to 
be  regarded  as  belligerents.  They  are  wards  of  the  nation.  The  Government  of  the 
United  States  has  assumed  to  take  care  of  them  and  to  protect  the  frontier  against  them 
by  placing  them  on  reservations  and  under  the  control  of  the  military;  and  they  have 
thus  invited  people  to  go  on  the  frontier,  risk  their  lives,  and  risk  their  property. 

The  Government  has  invited  them  to  do  that,  and  has  placed  agents  over  the  Indians; 
but  for  all  that  they  break  out  and  they  carry  with  them  the  torch ;  they  burn,  pillage,  rob, 
destroy,  murder,  and  carry  into  captivity ;  and  when  these  unfortunate  people  come  to 
Congress  and  ask  for  relief,  because  every  man  has  not  been  prepared  to  bring  forward 
his  claim  in  the  mode  and  manner  which  is  required,  all  others  who  have  done  so  are  to 
be  relegated  to  some  commission  hereafter  to  be  appointed  to  regulate  these  things.  Sir, 
that  is  not  just.  Let  '^every  tub  stand  upon  its  own  bottom."  If  a  man  has  an  honest 
claim  let  it  be  brought  forward,  and  if  the  claims  amount  to  $8,000,000,  as  the  Senator  from 
Wisconsin  says,  if  they  are  just  claims  for  depredations  committed  bj''  these  wards  of  the 
nation  upon  the  defenseless  frontier  people  in  the  destruction  and  robbery  of  their  prop- 
erty, this  Government,  as  an  upright  and  honorable  and  honest  gentleman  would  do, 
ought  to  pay  the  last  dollar  of  it  if  the  Indians  have  not  enough  money  of  their  own  to 
pay  that  debt.  I  assume  in  the  broadest  form  the  position  that  it  would  be  just  and  right 
and  fair  to  do  it. 

Mr.  Cockrell  (page  1724) : 

It  is  a  matter  of  absolute  necessity  that  we  shall  sift  these  claims,  that  we  shall  ascer- 
tain those  that  are  properly  chargeable  against  the  nations  and  tribes  that  have  annuities, 


426 

and  with  whom  we  have  treaty  stipulations,  and  whose  money  we  have,  so  that  we  can 
pay  the  claims.  Now,  1  am  for  making  these  Indians  pay  every  solitary  dollar  due  for 
the  actual  depredations  committed  by  them,  whenever  they  have  any  money  or  whenever 
they  have  any  lands  out  of  which  they  can  be  paid.  I  want  to  hold  them  responsible  to 
the'fuUest  extent  of  the  law ;  but  I  only  want  to  pay  what  is  actually  due,  the  real  value 
of  the  propertj''  destroyed,  or  the  real  injury  done  to  it,  and  not  mere  imaginative  dam- 
ages that  may  have  resulted,  and  which  should  never  be  allowed  in  any  Court  of  justice. 
Therefore,  we  put  in  the  amendment,  under  the  head  of  "  Indian  Depredation  Claims,"  at 
page  47,  requiring  a  thorough  investigation  of  this  whole  matter.  We  appropriate  |10,000 
for  it.  The  Secretary  can  take  this  money  and  he  can  have  a  thorough  investigation 
made;  he  can  report  to  us  all  the  facts;  he  can  show  us  the  evidence  upon  which  these 
claims  are  allowed,  and  the  treaties  and  the  funds.  Then  we  can  go  to  work  and  settle 
the  cases  intelligently,  and  honestly,  and  fairly;  but  we  cannot  do  it  until  we  have  that 
information,  and  it  is  idle  to  undertake  to  do  it.  We  are  simply  making  fish  of  one  and 
flesh  of  another.  We  are  making  a  favorite  of  one,  and  we  are  doing  great  injustice  and 
wrong  to  hundreds  of  others. 

Appendix  H. 

claims  presented,  allowed,  and  disallowed  in  various  claims  tribunals,  showing  the 
proportions  of  claims  to  allowances. 

I. 

Southern  Claims  Commission,  under  Act  of  March  3,  1871  (16  Stat.  L.,  524): 

Amount  claimed .-. -.. $60,258,150  44 

Amount  allowed 4,636,920  69 

Amount  rejected 55,621,229  75 

(See  House  Miscellaneous  Document  No.  30,  Forty-sixth  Congress,  second  session.) 

II. 

Court  of  Claims  in  cases  decided  from  December  term,  1867,  to  December  term,  1880: 

Amount  claimed $80,315,529  20 

Amount  allowed .-.     19.770,540  98 

Amount  rejected 60,544,988  22 

(See  seventeenth  volume  Court  of  Claims  Keports,  page  11.) 

III. 

Claims  Commission  under  convention  with  Great  Britain  of  February,  1853  (10  Stat.  L., 
988) : 

Amount  claimed,  "  millions." 

Amount  allowed,  about $600,000  00 

(See  message  of  the  President  communicating  the  proceedings,  printed  by  the  Senate 
Printer,  1858,  page  4.) 

Claims  Commission  under  convention  with  Mexico  of  July  4,  1868  (15  Stat.  L.,  679): 

Amount  of  claims  against  the  United  States $86,661,981  15 

Amount  allowed  in  claims  against  the  United  States 150,498  41 

Amount  rejected  in  claims  against  the  United  States 86,511,392  74 

Amount  of  claims  against  Mexico . ---  470,126,613  40 

Amount  allowed  in  claims  against  Mexico 4,125,622  20 

Amount  rejected  in  claims  against  Mexico 466,000,991  20 

(See  Senate  Executive  Document  No.  31,  Forty-fourth  Congress,  second  session.) 

V. 

Claims  Commission  urtder  convention  with  France  of  January  15, 1880  (21  Stat.  L.,  673) : 

Amount  of  claims  against  the  United  States -..  $17,368,151  27 

Amount  allowed  in  claims  against  the  United  States 625,566  35 

Amount  rejected  in  claims  against  the  United  States 16,742,584  92 

Amount  of  claims  against  France.-- 2,427,544  91 

Amount  allowed  in  claims  against  France,  13,659  francs  14  cent.,  or  about..  2,732  00 

Amount  rejected  in  claims  against  France 2,424,812  91 

(See  House  Executive  Document  No.  235,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  session,  pages 
191,  193.) 


427 

VI. 

Claims  under  the  Act  of  July  4,  1864,  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Quartermaster-General : 

Amount  claimed $41,107,266  48 

Amount  reported  to  the  Third  Auditor  under  the  second  section  of  said  Act 

with  recommendation  for  settlement  up  to  March  6,  1886 5,750,119  71 

Amount  rejected.- --- 29,083,554  16 

Amount  of  claims  pending  at  said  date 6,273,592  61 

VII. 

Claims  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Commissary-General  up  to  March  10, 1886: 

Amount  claimed -  $4,944,111  14 

Amount  recommended  to  the  Third  Auditor  of  the  Treasury  for  settlement 

under  said  Act  to  said  date ---  429,533  47 

Amount  rejected 4,509,704  17 

Amount  of  claims  now  pending 4,873  50 

^         Appendix  I. 

xetter  of  commissioner  of  indian  affairs,  showing  the  amount  of  claims  for  depre- 
dations committed  by  the  indians,  filed  in  the  office  of  indian  affairs. 

Department  of  the  Interior,  Office  of  Indian  Affairs,         ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  March  3,  1886.  j 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  interrogatories  relative  to  number,  amount,  etc.,  of  Indian  depre- 
dation claims  pending  in  this  office,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  with  the  forces 
employed  and  the  amount  of  other  duties  devolving  upon  them,  it  has  been  impossible  to 
collect  the  full  and  exact  data  you  desire;  such  facts,  however,  as  the  office  has  been  able 
to  collect,  and  which  are  believed  to  be  approximatelj'^  correct,  are  given. 

There  are  about  forty-five  hundred  claims  on  file  on  account  of  Indian  depredations, 
dating  from  1850  to  the  present  time,  and  they  aggregate  in  amount  $13,000,000.  Prior  to 
the  Act  of  July  15,  1870  (see  Revised  Statutes,  Section  2098),  claims  against  Indians  for 
depredations  were  paid  by  United  States  Indian  agents.  As  to  what  amount  was  thus 
paid  the  office  has  not  been  able  to  ascertain.  By  an  examination  of  the  Statutes  at  Large, 
'beginning  with  the  Act  of  March  3,  1819  (3  Statutes,  page  517),  and  coming  down  to  the 
Act  of  March  3, 1885  (23  Statutes,  498),  it  will  be  seen  that  Congress  has  appropriated  by 
special  Acts  in  payment  of  claims  about  the  sum  of  $1,654,530. 

As  to  what  amount  of  claims  has  been  allowed  by  and  what  amount  has  been  rejected 
by  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  or  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  heretofore  cannot 
he  ascertained  within  the  time  desired  by  you,  if  in  fact  it  could  be  ascertained  at  all  in  a 
satisfactory  manner,  as  in  many  instances  the  same  claim  has  been  disallowed  by  one 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  allowed  by  his  successor. 
Very  respectfullv, 

J.  D.  C.  ATKINS,  Commissioner. 

Hon.  J.  N.  Dolph,  United  States  Senate. 


INDIAN  DEPREDATION  CLAIMS. 

'  Speech  of  Hon.  J.  N.  Dolph. 

The  President  ^ro  tempore.  The  bill  called  up  by  the  Senator  from  Ore- 
gon is  now  before  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Dolph.  As  I  desire  to  refer  to  Senate  Bill  1820,  I  ask  to  have  it 
read  as  part  of  my  remarks. 

The  President  pro  tempore.     The  bill  will  be  read. 

The  Chief  Clerk  read  as  follows: 

Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  there  be  and  hereby  is  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the 
Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  the  sum  of  $5,000,000,  or  so  much  thereof  as'  may  be 
necessary,  to  pay  the  Indian  depredation  claims  which  have  been  heretofore  filed  and 
investigated  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  reported  by  him  to 
Congress,  in  pursuance  of  the  laws  of  Congress  and  in  accordance  with  the  rules  and  regu- 
lations prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

Mr.  Dolph.  I  now  ask  to  have  read  the  bill  which  I  introduced  this 
morning  concerning  Indian  depredations. 


428 

The  President  pro  tempore.     The  bill  will  be  read. 

The  Chief  Clerk  read  the  bill  (S.  2169)  in  relation  to  Indian  depreda- 
tions, as  follows: 

Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  the  Court  of  Claims  shall  have  power  to  hear  and  determine  all 
claims  for  depredations  committed  by  Indians  embraced  within  the  terms  of  Section  2156 
of  the  Revised  Statutes,  whether  the  said  claims  have  been  heretofore  presented  to  the 
Interior  Department  or  Congress,  or  not. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  Secretarj^  of  the  Interior,  or  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate,  or  the  Clerk 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  as  the  case  may  be,  shall  immediately  after  the  passage 
of  this  Act  transmit  to  the  Court  of  Claims  for  adjudication  all  claims  for  Indian  depre- 
dations heretofore  presented  to  the  Interior  Department  or  to  Congress,  with  all  vouchers, 
papers,  proofs,  and  documents  pertaining  thereto,  and  upon  the  presentation  of  a  petition 
on  behalf  of  any  claimant  within  the  time  hereinafter  limited  the  same  shall  be  there  pro- 
ceeded in  under  such  rules  as  said  Court  may  adopt. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  Attorney-General,  or  his  assistants  under  his  direction,  shall  appear 
therein  to  defend  the  United  States  and  the  Indians  in  all  such  actions,  with  the  same 
power  to  interpose  counter-claims,  offsets,  defenses  for  fraud,  and  other  defenses  as  now 
given  in  said  Court. 

Sec  4.  That  the  same  right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  exist- 
ing in  other  cases  in  the  Court  of  Claims  shall  exist  in  the  cases  considered  under  this 
Act. 

Sec.  5.  That  no  person  shall  be  excluded  from  testifying  in  cases  under  this  Act  on 
account  of  being  a  party  or  interested ;  and  the  affidavits  and  other  evidence  heretofore 
filed  in  Congress,  or  in  the  Departments,  in  such  cases  may  be  considered  by  said  Courts 
and  such  weight  shall  be  given  to  such  evidence  as  the  Court  may  deem  proper. 

Sec  6.  That  the  Court  of  Claims  shall  in  every  judgment  rendered  under  this  Act  find 
the  tribe  of  Indians  by  which,  or  by  members  of  which,  the  depredation  was  committed,, 
and  whether  annuities  or  other  funds  are  due  to  said  tribe  from  the  United  States. 

Sec  7.  That  the  amount  of  any  judgment  so  rendered  shall  be  charged  against  the  tribes 
by  which,  or  by  members  of  which,  the  Court  shall  find  that  the  depredation  was  com- 
mitted, and  shall  be  deducted  and  paid  in  the  following  manner:  First,  from  any  annui- 
ties due  said  tribe  from  the  United  States ;  secondly,  if  no  annuities  are  due  or  available 
from  any  other  funds  due  said  tribe  from  the  United  States  arising  from  the  sale  of  their 
lands  or  otherwise ;  thirdly,  if  no  such  funds  are  due  or  available  from  any  appropriations 
for  the  benefit  of  said  tribe,  other  than  appropriations  for  their  current  and  necessary  sup- 
port, subsistence,  and  education ;  and  fourthly,  if  no  such  annuity,  fund,  or  appropriation 
IS  due  or  available,  the  amount  of  the  judgment  shall  be  paid  from  the  public  Treasury; 
provided,  that  any  amount  so  paid  from  the  public  Treasury  shall  remain  a  charge  against 
such  tribe,  and  shall  be  deducted  from  any  annuity,  fund,  or  appropriation  hereinbefore 
designated  which  may  hereafter  become  due  from  the  United  States  to  such  tribe. 

Sec  8.  That  in  all  said  claims  which  have  arisen  prior  to  the  passage  of  this  Act, 
whether  heretofore  presented  or  not,  a  petition  on  behalf  of  the  claimant  shall  be  presented 
to  the  Court  within  three  years  from  the  date  hereof,  and  not  thereafter;  and  in  all  such 
claims  arising  less  than  six  years  prior  to  the  date  hereof,  or  which  may  hereafter  arise, 
such  a  petition  shall  be  so  presented  within  six  years  from  the  date  of  such  depredation, 
and  not  thereafter;  and  all  claims  for  Indian  depredations  not  so  presented  within  the 
time  limited  by  this  section  shall  be  forever  barred,  and  shall  not  be  considered  by  any 
department  of  the  Government. 

Mr.  Dolph.  Mr.  President,  by  the  two  bills  just  read  it  is  designed  to 
provide  for  the  adjudication  and  payment  of  that  class  of  claims  against 
the  Government,  known  as  Indian  depredation  claims.  By  the  first  of 
these  bills  an  appropriation  is  proposed  for  the  payment  of  all  such  claims 
as  have  been  duly  presented  to  the  Interior  Department,  examined  and 
approved,  and  reported  to  Congress,  and  by  the  second  it  is  proposed  to  pro- 
vide for  claimants  whose  claims  for  any  reason  have  not  been  so  examined 
and  approved,  a  tribunal  to  which  such  claims  can  be  presented  and  adju- 
dicated according  to  law  and  the  rules  and  practice  of  the  Court. 

On  the  sixteenth  day  of  January,  1884,  I  introduced  and  had  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs  a  bill  to  provide  for  ascertaining  losses 
sustained  by  citizens  of  the  United  States  in  Oregon,  Washington  and  Idaho 
Territories,  and  in  Northern  California,  by  reason  of  Indian  depredations 
committed  during  the  period  from  1855  to  1878  inclusive.  The  bill  pro- 
vided in  substance  for  the  appointment  of  three  Commissioners  to  inquire 
into  the  extent  and  character  of  such  depredations,  and  the  description 
and  value  of  the  property  destroyed  or  carried  away,  and  the  damage 


429 

sustained  by  citizens  by  reason  thereof;  and  it  also  further  provided  the 
manner  in  which  testimony  should  be  taken,  and  such  claims  should  be 
examined  and  reported  by  the  Commissioners  to  the  Third  Auditor  of  the 
Treasury,  and  by  him  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  be  transmitted 
to  Congress  for  an  appropriation.  That  bill  and  a  number  of  private  bills 
for  the  relief  of  citizens  for  losses  sustained  by  such  depredations,  intro- 
duced by  me  at  the  same  session,  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Indian 
Affairs,  but  none  of  them  were  ever  reported. 

Being  desirous  of  presenting  to  the  committee  and  to  the  Senate  the 
reasons  which,  in  my  judgment,  require  that  such  claims  should  be  paid 
without  further  delay,  and  fearing  that  if  the  bills  which  have  just  been 
read  shall  be  first  referred  to  the  committee  they  will  share  the  fate  of  those 
on  the  same  subject,  heretofore  introduced  by  me  and  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee, I  have  concluded  to  address  the  Senate  upon  them  before  they  are 
referred. 

The  civil  status  of  the  Indians  in  the  United  States  has  always  been  an 
anomaly.  From  an  early  period  in  the  history  of  the  Government  the 
Indian  tribes  were  treated  in  a  degree  as  political  bodies,  and  as  possessing 
some  of  the  functions  of  nationality,  but  as  neither  foreign  nor  domestic 
nations.  Congress,  however,  by  an  Act  approved  March  3,  1871,  provided 
that  thereafter  no  recognition  by  treaty  or  otherwise  should  be  made  by  the 
United  States  of  the  claim  of  any  Indian  tribe  as  being  an  independent 
nation,  tribe,  or  power.  In  the  articles  of  confederation  it  was  declared 
that  "the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  have  the  sole  and  exclusive 
right  and  power  of  regulating  the  trade  and  managing  all  the  affairs  with 
the  Indians  not  members  of  the  States." 

Under  this  provision  Congress  issued  a  proclamation  September  22, 1783, 
prohibiting  and  forbidding  all  persons  from  making  settlements  on  lands 
inhabited  or  claimed  by  Indians  within  the  limits  or  jurisdiction  of  any 
State,  and  from  purchasing  or  receiving  any  gift  or  cession  of  such  lands 
or  claims  without  the  authority  of  Congress,  and  declaring  every  such  un- 
authorized settlement,  purchase,  or  cession  null  and  void.  It  has  been 
settled  by  decisions  of  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  of  the  country  that  the 
Indian  tribes  are  not  the  owners  of  the  Territories  occupied  by  them,  but 
that  the  title  to  the  same  is  in  the  United  States,  subject  to  the  right  of 
occupancy  by  the  Indians,  and  that  such  tribes  are  incompetent  to  transfer 
any  rights  to  the  soil,  and  that  any  conveyances  of  their  lands  by  them 
are  void  ah  initio^  the  right  to  the  property  not  subsisting  in  the  grantor; 
that  the  General  Government  holds  the  right  of  eminent  domain  as  well 
as  the  title  to  the  soil  in  the  public  lands  subject  to  the  right  of  occupancy 
by  the  Indians,  and  that,  as  was  said  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in  John- 
son vs.  McIntosh^S  Wheaton,  543:  "The  Indian  inhabitants  are  considered 
merely  as  occupants  to  be  protected  while  in  peace  in  the  possession  of 
their  lands,  but  incapable  of  transferring  an  absolute  title  to  others." 

Acting  upon  this  theory,  the  Government  has  never  surveyed,  sold,  or 
disposed  of  the  public  lands  prior  to  the  extinguishment  of  the  Indian 
right  of  occupancy,  but  has  proceeded  from  time  to  time  to  terminate  the 
occupancy  of  the  Indians  as  the  lands  were  needed  for  settlement,  by  con- 
quest or  purchase;  and  since  the  Act  of  March  3,  1871,  keeps  up  the  form 
of  purchase  of  the  right  of  occupancy,  although  not  recognizing  the  Indian 
tribes  as  independent  powers,  and  although  the  Indians  are  treated  in  ajl 
other  respects  as  mere  wards  of  the  Government.  The  more  sensible  and 
consistent  position  under  existing  laws  would  be  to  treat  the  right  of  occu- 
pancy as  a  privilege  only,  which  the  Government  may  withdraw  when  the 
interests  of  civilization  and  of  such  wards,  in  the  opinion  of  the  guardian. 


430 

may  demand  it.  Having  assumed  the  absolute  control  of  the  Indians 
and  treated  them  as  personal  wards,  the  Government  should  assume  as 
absolute  a  control  of  their  property  and  not  permit  the  want  of  their  con- 
sent to  stand  in  the  way  of  a  disposition  thereof,  which,  in  the  opinion  of 
Congress,  would  be  for  their  benefit. 

The  Indians  in  the  United  States  are  now,  and  have  been  for  years,  upon 
reservations,  the  boundaries  of  which  have  been  fixed  by  the  Government, 
and  which  are  in  charge  of  agents  appointed  by  it,  and  are  maintained  to 
a  great  extent  by  annual  appropriations  from  the  Federal  Treasury.  Con- 
gress under  the  Constitution  has  power  to  regulate  commerce  with  the 
Indian  tribes,  and  under  this  power  the  United  States  has  at  all  times 
exercised  the  exclusive  control  of  the  trade  and  intercourse  with  the  Indians, 
and  no  one  has  ever  been  permitted  to  deal  with  them  except  under  license 
from  it.  The  first  Act  regulating  trade  and  commerce  with  the  Indians 
was  passed  May  19,  1796  (1  Stat.,  469).  Section  14  of  this  Act  was  as 
follows: 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  if  any  Indian  or  Indians,  belonging  to  any  tribe  in  amity 
with  the  United  States,  shall  come  over  or  across  the  said  boundary  line  into  any  State  or 
Territory  inhabited  by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  there  take,  steal,  or  destroj^  any 
horse,  horses,  or  other  property  belonging  to  any  citizen  or  inhabitant  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  either  of  the  Territorial  districts  of  the  United  States,  or  shall  commit  any 
murder,  violence,  or  outrage  upon  any  such  citizen  or  inhabitant,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
such  citizen  or  inhabitant,  his  representative,  attorney,  or  agent,  to  make  application  to 
the  superintendent,  or  such  other  person  as  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall 
authorize  for  that  purpose;  who,  upon  being  furnished  with  the  necessary  documents  and 
proofs,  shall,  under  the  direction  or  instruction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
make  application  to  the  nation  or  tribe  to  which  such  Indian  or  Indians  shall  belong, 
for  satisfaction ;  and  if  such  nation  or  tribe  shall  neglect  or  refuse  to  make  satisfaction  in 
a  reasonable  time,  not  exceeding  eighteen  months,  then  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  super- 
intendent or  other  person  authorized,  as  aforesaid,  to  make  return  of  his  doings  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  forward  to  him  all  documents  and  proofs  in  the  case, 
that  such  further  steps  may  be  taken  as  shall  be  proper  to  obtain  satisfaction  for  the 
injury.  And  in  the  meantime,  in  respect  to  the  property  taken,  stolen,  or  destroyed,  the 
United  States  guarantees  to  the  party  injured  an  eventual  indemnification;  provided 
always,  that  if  such  injured  party,  his  representative,  attorney,  or  agent,  shall,  in  any 
way,  violate  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  by  seeking  or  attempting  to  obtain  private 
satisfaction  or  revenge,  bv  crossing  over  the  line  on  any  of  the  Indian  lands,  he  shall  for- 
feit all  claim  upon  the  United  States  for  such  indemnification;  arid  provided,  also,  that 
nothing  herein  contained  shall  prevent  the  legal  apprehension  or  arresting  within  the 
limits  of  any  State  or  district  of  any  Indian  having  so  offended ;  arid  provided  further, 
that  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  deduct  such  sum  or  sums 
as  shall  be  paid  for  the  property  taken,  stolen,  or  destroyed  by  any  such  Indian,  out  of 
the  annual  stipend  which  the  United  States  are  bound  to  pay  to  the  tribe  to  which  such 
Indian  shall  belong. 

This  section  was  substantially  reenacted  in  the  Act  of  March  3,  1779 
(1  Statutes,  747),  in  the  Act  of  March  30,  1802  (2  Statutes,  143),  and  in 
the  Act  of  June  30,  1834  (4  Statutes,  731).  The  changes  from  the  origi- 
nal section  made  by  the  Acts  of  1779  and  1802  were  merely  verbal,  and 
all  of  the  Acts  contained  the  following  clause,  quoted  from  the  Act  of 
June  30,  1834: 

And,  in  the  meantime,  in  respect  to  the  property  so  taken,  stolen,  or  destroyed,  the 
United  States  guarantee  to  the  person  injured  an  eventual  indemnification. 

And  the  Act  of  1834  contained  the  following  provision: 

And  if  the  nation  or  tribe  to  which  such  Indian  may  belong  receive  an  annuity  from 
the  United  States,  such  claim  shall,  at  the  next  payment  of  the  annuity,  be  deducted 
therefrom  and  paid  to  the  party  injured;  and  if  no  annuity  is  payable  to  such  nation  or 
tribe,  then  the  amount  of  the  claim  shall  be  paid  from  the  treasury  of  the  United  States. 

These  provisions  of  the  Act  of  1834  remained  in  force,  and  claims  for 
losses  from  Indian  depredations,  were  paid  by  the  United  States  in  accord- 


431 

ance  therewith  until  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  February  28,  1859,  Section 
8  of  which  repealed  the  provision  for  the  payment  of  these  claims  from 
the  Treasury,  and  was  in  the  following  words: 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  so  much  of  the  Act  entitled  "An  Act  to  regulate  trade 
and  intercourse  with  the  Indian  tribes  and  preserve  peace  on  the  frontiers,"  approved 
June  30,  1834,  as  provides  that  the  United  States  shall  make  indemnification  out  of  the 
Treasury  for  property  taken  or  destroyed  in  certain  cases  by  Indians  trespassing  on  white 
men,  as  described  in  the  said  Act,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  repealed;  provided,  hoivever, 
that  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  impair  or  destroy  the  olDligation 
of  the  Indians  to  make  indemnification  out  of  the  annuities  as  prescribed' in  said  Act. 

By  joint  resolution  passed  June  25,  1860  (12  Statutes,  120),  it  was  pro- 
vided : 

That  the  repeal  by  the  eighth  section  of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  the  twenty-eighth 
day  of  February,  1859,  of  so  much  of  the  Act  of  Congress  entitled  "  An  Act  to  regulate 
trade  and  intercourse  with  Indian  tribes,  and  to  preserve  peace  on  the  frontiers,"  ap- 
proved June  30,  1834,  as  provides  that  the  United  States  shall  make  indemnification  out 
of  the  Treasurj^  for  property  taken  or  destroyed  in  certain  cases  by  Indians  trespassing 
on  white  men,  as  described  in  said  Act,  shall  not  be  construed  to  destroy  or  impair  any 
right  to  indemnity  which  existed  at  the  date  of  said  repeal. 

Claims  for  Indian  depredations,  arising  prior  to  February  28,  1859,  were 
therefore  paid  out  of  the  Treasury,  if  there  were  no  annuities  payable  to 
the  tribes  committing  the  depredations  from  which  they  could  have  been 
paid,  and  the  payment  of  claims  for  depredations  committed  after  Feb- 
ruary 28,  1859,  was  continued  out  of  annuities  due  the  tribe  committing 
the  depredations  until  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  July  15,  1870,  Section  4 
of  which  (now  2098  of  the  Revised  Statutes)  is  as  follows: 

That  no  part  of  the  moneys  appropriated  by  this  Act,  or  which  may  hereafter  be  appro- 
priated in  any  general  Act  or  deficiency  bill,  making  appropriations  for  the  current  and 
contingent  expenses  of  the  Indian  Department,  to  pay  annuities  due,  or  to  be  used  and 
expended  for  the  care  and  benefit  of  any  tribe  or  tribes  of  Indians  named  herein,  shall  be 
applied  to  the  payment  of  any  claim  for  depredations  that  may  have  been  or  may  be 
committed  hy  such  tribe  or  tribes,  or  any  member  or  members  thereof;  and  no  claim  for 
Indian  depredations  shall  hereafter  be  paid  until  Congress  shall  make  special  appropri- 
ation therefor;  and  all  Acts  and  parts  of  Acts  inconsistent  herewith  are  hereby  repealed. 

By  an  Act  passed  May  29, 1872  (17  Statutes,  190,  now  Section  466  R.  S.), 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  required  to  prepare  and  cause  to  be  pub- 
lished such  regulations  as  he  may  deem  proper,  prescribing  the  manner  of 
presenting  claims  arising  under  laws  or  treaty  stipulations  for  compensa- 
tion for  depredations  committed  by  the  Indians,  and  the  degree  and  char- 
acter of  the  evidence  necessary  to  support  such  claims,  and  to  carefully 
investigate  such  claims  as  may  be  presented,  subject  to  the  regulations 
prepared  by  him;  and  it  is  provided  that  "no  payment  on  account  of  said 
claims  shall  be  made  without  a  specific  appropriation  therefor  by  Con- 
gress." 

Sections  2156  and  2157  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  being  a  part  of  the  Act 
of  June  30,  1834,  as  modified  by  the  Act  of  February  28,  1859,  and  of 
July  15,  1870,  provide: 

Sec.  2156.  If  any  Indian,  belonging  to  any  tribe  in  amity  with  the  United  States,  shall, 
within  the  Indian  country,  take  or  destroy  the  property  of  any  person  lawfully  within 
such  country,  or  shall  pass  from  Indian  country  into  any  State  or  Territory  inhabited  by 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  there  take,  steal,  or  destroy  any  horse  or  other  property 
belonging  to  any  citizen  or  inhabitant  of  the  United  States,  such  citizen  or  inhabitant, 
his  representative,  attorney,  or  agent  may  make  application  to  the  proper  superintendent, 
agent,  or  subagent,  who,  upon  being  furnished  with  the  necessary  documents  and  proofs, 
shall,  under  the  direction  of  the  President,  make  application  to  the  nation  or  tribe  to 
which  such  Indian  shall  belong  for  satisfaction;  and  if  such  nation  or  tribe  shall  neglect 
or  refuse  to  make  satisfaction  in  a  reasonable  time,  not  exceeding  twelve  months,  such 


432 

superintendent,  agent,  or  subagent  shall  make  return  of  his  doings  to  the  Commissioner 
of  Indian  Affairs,  that  such  further  steps  may  be  taken  as  shall  be  proper  in  the  opinion 
of  the  President  to  obtain  satisfaction  for  the  injury. 

Sec.  2157.  The  superintendents,  agents,  and  subagents  within  their  respective  districts 
are  authorized  and  empowered  to  take  depositions  of  witnesses  touching  any  depreda- 
tions within  the  purview  of  the  preceding  sections,  and  to  administer  oaths  to  the  depo- 
nents. 

These  sections  have  remained  in  force,  and  numerous  claims  for  Indian 
depredations  have  since  1859  been  presented  to  and  audited  by  the  Interior 
Department,  notwithstanding  the  Government  had  virtually  ceased  to 
appropriate  money  for  the  payment  of  the  claims  thus  audited.  If  it  was 
intended  by  Congress,  by  the  Act  of  1859,  to  repudiate  the  obligation  of 
the  Government  to  its  citizens  to  indemnify  them  for  such  losses  it  should 
have  said  so  then,  and  not  have  held  out  to  thein  delusive  hopes  by  con- 
tinuing to  receive  proofs  of  these  claims  and  to  audit  them  under  regula- 
tions prescribed  by  its  authority. 

The  claims  examined  and  audited  by  the  Interior  Department  have 
been  reported  at  different  times  to  Congress  and  are  contained  in  the  fol- 
lowing executive  documents,  all  being  letters  from  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  to  the  House  of  Representatives: 

House  Executive  Document  No.  127,  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  second 
session. 

House  Executive  Document  No.  311,  Forty-first  Congress,  second  session. 

House  Executive  Document  No.  11,  Forty-second  Congress,  third  session. 

House  Executive  Document  No.  65,  Forty-third  Congress,  second  session. 

House  Executive  Document  No.  147,  Forty-fourth  Congress,  first  session. 

House  Executive  Document  No.  135,  Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session. 

House  Executive  Document  No.  10,  Forty-seventh  Congress,  second  ses- 
sion. 

House  Executive  Document  No.  23,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session. 

House  Executive  Document  No.  102,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session. 

House  Executive  Document,  No.  132,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session. 

House  Executive  Document  No.  20,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  ses- 
sion. 

House  Executive  Document  No.  86,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  session. 

House  Executive  Document  No.  182,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  ses- 
sion. 

House  Executive  Document  No.  197,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  ses- 
sion. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1885,  the  Indian  appropriation  bill,  the  sum  of 
$10,000  was  appropriated  for  the  investigation  of  certain  Indian  depredation 
claims,  and  it  is  provided  in  said  Act  that  "in  expending  said  sum  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  shall  cause  to  be  made  a  complete  list  of  all 
claims  heretofore  filed  in  the  Interior  Department,  and  which  have  been 
approved  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  now  remain  unpaid;  and  also  such  claims 
as  are  pending,  but  not  yet  examined,  on  behalf  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  on  account  of  depredations  committed  chargeable  against  any  tribe 
of  Indians  by  reason  of  any  treaty  between  such  tribe  and  the  United 
States,  including  the  name  and  address  of  the  claimants,"  etc. 

The  first  clause  of  this  provision  is  construed  by  the  Interior  Department 
to  comprehend  all  claims  for  Indian  depredations,  without  reference  to 
treaty  obligations,  which  had  been  approved  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  were 
unpaid  and  on  file  in  this  Department  at  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  Act. 

The  latter  clause  is  construed  to  comprehend,  and  to  require  the  exami- 
nation of  such  unexamined  claims  in  favor  of  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
on  account  of  Indian  depredations,  as  were  pending  at  the  passage  of  the 


433 

Act,  and  which  are  chargeable  to  Indians  who  were  in  amity  with  the 
United  States,  and  bound  by  treaty  obligations  to  make  satisfaction  therefor. 

So  that  unintentionally,  probably,  Congress  has,  in  the  claims  directed 
to  be  reported,  made  a  distinction  between  claims  of  the  same  class,  filed 
under  the  same  law,  and  audited  under  the  same  regulations  of  the  Inte- 
rior Department,  by  requiring  those  only  which  had  been  approved  before 
the  passage  of  the  Act,  to  be  reported  in  cases  in  which  they  are  not  charge- 
able to  the  Indians  under  treaty  stipulations. 

By  House  Executive  Document  No.  125,  being  a  letter  from  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior,  dated  March  11,  1886,  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Kepresentatives,  there  was  transmitted  a  report  of  the  Commissioner  of 
Indian  Affairs,  made  in  pursuance  of  said  Act  of  March  3,  1885,  contain- 
ing a  list  of  about  forty-five  hundred  claims,  approximating  in  amount,  as 
is  stated  in  the  report,  to  about  $15,000,000.  Some  idea  of  the  magnitude 
of  the  question  of  the  adjudication  and  payment  of  these  claims  can  be 
obtained  by  an  inspection  of  this  report,  which  I  hold  in  my  hand. 

The  list  of  claims  with  alphabetical  indexes  makes  a  volume  of  two  hun- 
dred and  ninety  pages.  Most  of  the  claims  which  appear  in  this  report 
have  been  heretofore  reported  to  Congress  from  year  to  year  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior  in  his  annual  reports  of  depredation  claims  audited  and 
-allowed  under  the  provisions  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  still  the  claimants 
have  no  assurance  of  the  payment  of  their  claims.  We  should  temporize 
with  this  matter  no  longer.  It  can  be  better  dealt  with  now  than  it  ever 
can  be  hereafter. 

Under  the  authority  conferred  upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  by  Sec- 
tion 466  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  there  was  issued  July  13,  1872,  by  the 
Department  rules  and  regulations,  still  in  force,  of  which  the  following  is 
a  copy: 

Rtdes  and  regulations  adopted  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior  relative  to  the  presentation  and 
examination  of  claims  on  account  of  depredations  committed  by  Indians. 

By  the  seventh  section  of  the  Act  of  Congress  making  appropriations  for  the  Indian 
Department,  approved  May  29,  1872,  it  is  enacted:  "That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Interior  to  prepare  and  cause  to  be  published  such  rules  and  regulations  as 
he  may  deem  necessary  or  proper,  prescribing  the  manner  of  presenting  claims  arising 
under  existing  laws  or  treaty  stipulations,  for  compensation  for  depredations  committed 
by  the  Indians,  and  the  degree  and  character  of  the  evidence  to  support  such  claims;  he 
shall  carefully  investigate  all  such  claims  as  may  be  presented,  subject  to  the  rules  and 
regulations  prepared  by  him,  and  report  to  Congress,  at  each  session  thereof,  the  nature, 
character,  and  amount  of  such  claims,  whether  allowed  by  him  or  not,  and  the  evidence 
upon  which  his  action  was  based ;  provided,  that  no  payment  on  account  of  said  claim 
shall  be  made  without  a  specific  appropriation  by  Congress." 

In  compliance  with  the  requirement  of  the  law  as  quoted  above  the  following  rules  and 
regulations  are  prescribed : 

1.  Application  for  indemnity  or  satisfaction  for  the  loss  or  injury  sustained  must  be 
made  by  the  claimant,  his  attorney  or  duly  authorized  agent,  *  *  *  to  the  United 
States  *  *  *  Indian  agent,  or  subagent  within  whose  jurisdiction  or  charge  the  nation, 
tribe,  or  band  is  to  which  the  offenders  or  depredators  belong. 

2.  The  necessary  documents  and  proofs  must  accompany  the  application  of  the  claim- 
ant, his  attorney,  or  agent,  and  should  be  in  legal  form,  and  consist — 

First— 01  the  sworn  declaration  of  the  claimant,  setting  forth  when  and  where  the  dep- 
redation was  committed,  and  by  what  Indians,  their  tribe  or  nation  being  named ;  describ- 
ing fully  the  property  stolen  or  destroyed,  and  giving  the  quantity  of  each  article  or 
number,  condition  or  quality  thereof,  and  the  just  value  of  each  article  or  piece  of  prop- 
erty at  the  time  the  same  was  so  taken  or  destroyed.  Should  the  depredation  have  been 
committed  while  the  claimant  was  in  the  Indian  country,  he  must  state  whether  he  was 
lawfully  there,  either  having  a  license  to  trade  with  the  Indians,  a  passport,  or  a  permit 
from  the  proper  Indian  authorities,  or  was  en  route  through  said  country  to  a  place  of  ulti- 
mate destination  at  some  point  within  the  limits  of  any  State  or  Territory  not  included 
within  the  limits  of  the  reservation  for  any  nation  or  tribe  of  Indians  set  apart  by  treaty 
provision  or  by  executive  order;  and  he  in  such  declaration  must  further  state  whether 
any  of  the  property  so  stolen  or  destroyed  has  subsequently  been  recovered  by  or  for  him, 
the  claimant;  and  whether  the  claimant  has  at  any  time  received  part  compensation 

28  •" 


434 

therefor,  and,  if  so,  how  much,  when,  and  from  what  source ;  and  further,  that  the  claim- 
ant has  in  no  way  endeavored  to  obtain  private  satisfaction  or  revenge. 

Second — Of  depositions  of  two  or  more  persons  having  personal  cognizance  of  the  facts 
or  any  of  them  as  embraced  in  the  declaration  of  the  claimant,  which  depositions  must 
set  forth  the  means  of  knowledge  which  deponents  have  as  to  the  fact  of  the  depredation, 
when,  where,  by  what  Indians,  and  under  what  circumstances  the  depredation  was  com- 
mitted, of  what  the  property  consisted  that  was  so  taken  or  destroyed  by  the  Indians, 
describing  it  as  fully  as  practicable,  and  stating  the  value  thereof.  If  the  deponents,  or 
any  of  them,  were  at  the  time  of  the  depredation  in  the  employment  of  the  claimant  it 
must  be  so  stated,  and  in  what  capacity.  In  addition  to  the  foregoing,  the  claimant  must 
show,  by  his  own  evidence  or  that  of  other  persons,  that  at  the  time  the  depredation  was 
committed  the  property  then  stolen  or  destroyed  was  being  properly  guarded  and  cared 
for,  and  that  the  loss  thereof  was  not  occasioned  by  the  negligence  or  carelessness  of  him- 
self or  employes. 

3.  The  testimony  adduced  by  the  claimant  must  be  taken  before  some  officer  authorized 
by  law  to  administer  oaths,  or  it  may  be  taken  before  the  proper  *  *  *  Indian  agent, 
or  subagent.  If  taken  before  a  Justice  of  the  Peace,  the  oflBcial  character  of  that  person 
should  be  certified  by  some  proper  officer  empowered  thereunto.  All  interlineations  or 
changes  that  it  may  be  necessary  to  make  in  the  testimony  of  any  person  testifying  in 
behalf  of  the  claimant,  either  before  or  at  the  signing  of  the  same,  must  be  duly  attested 
by  the  officer  before  whom  the  testimony  is  sworn  to  and  subscribed. 

4.  When  the  application,  documents,  and  proofs  shall  have  been  received  by  the  *  *  * 
Indian  agent,  or  subagent,  said  officer  shall  carefully  investigate  the  case;  shall  ascertain 
by  inquiry  of  reliable  persons,  from  advertised  prices,  or  otherwise,  whether  the  prices, 
fixed  by  the  claimant  upon  the  articles  of  property  mentioned  in  the  claim  are  just  and 
fair  as  compared  with  the  market  prices  ruling  at  the  time  in  the  State  or  Territory  in 
which  the  depredation  was  committed,  with  due  allowance  for  enhancement  of  price  by 
reason  of  transportation ;  and,  where  it  is  possible  to  procure  it,  said  officer  shall,  if  deemed 
advisable,  take  testimony  as  to  the  credibility  of  the  claimant,  or  of  any  person  testifying 
in  his  behalf;  and  also  respecting  the  statements  set  forth  in  the  application,  documents, 
and  proofs  submitted  by  the  claimant.  Upon  the  performance  of  this  duty,  the  *  *  * 
Indian  agent,  or  subagent,  will,  without  unnecessary  delay,  present  the  case  to  the  proper 
nation  or  tribe  assembled  in  council,  according  to  the  custom  of  such  nation  or  tribe,  and, 
after  fully  explaining  it  to  them,  he  will  then  and  there  demand  satisfaction  for  the  claim- 
ant. If  within  a  reasonable  time  the  nation  or  tribe  shall  not  have  complied  with  such 
demand,  the  fact  of  the  depredation  by  some  of  their  people  being  admitted  in  such  coun- 
cil, or  if  they  deny  the  charge  as  made  and  pe^-emptorily  refuse  to  render  any  satisfaction, 
the  *  *«■  *  agent,  or  subagent,  will  in  such  case  submit  a  report  of  the  proceedings  had, 
together  with  all  the  papers,  to  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs.  Such  report  shall 
state  whether  the  Indians  in  council  recognized,  remembered,  and  admitted  the  depreda- 
tions charged;  and,  if  so,  how  far  and  with  what  particularity  the  allegations  of  the  claim- 
ant respecting  such  depredations  were  borne  out  by  the  recollections  and  acknowledgments 
of  the  Indians  in  reference  thereto. 

5.  The  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  will  cause  all  claims  received  by  him  as  above 
noticed  to  be  duly  registered  and  filed  in  his  office,  and  shall,  as  soon  thereafter  as  practi- 
cable, cause  the  same  to  be  carefully  examined,  and  then  forwarded,  with  a  report  of  his 
views  and  opinion  in  each  case,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  the  action  of  the 
Department. 

C.  DELANO,  Secretary. 
Department  of  the  Interior,  July  13,  1872. 

And  under  the  Act  of  March  3, 1885,  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs 
issued  a  circular,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy: 


To  — 


[Circular  No.  159.] 

n 
Washington,  D.  C, ,  188—. 


Department  of  the  Interior,  Office  of  Indian  Affairs,  ) 


By  an  item  in  the  Act  of  Congress,  approved  March  3,  1885  (Stats.  23,  p.  376),  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior  is  required  to  investigate  certain  depredation  claims  as  therein  indi- 
cated, and  make  report  thereof  to  Congress  at  its  next  regular  session. 

The  evidence  on  file  in depredation  claim  for  $ is  not  made  in  compliance  with 

the  rules  prescribed  by  the  Department,  and  is  defective  and  inadequate  to  satisfactorily 
establish  the  claim.  Any  additional  evidence  in  support  of  the  claim  must  be  submitted 
immediately,  and  if  none  is  submitted  within days  the  case  will  be  examined,  adjudi- 
cated, and  disposed  of  upon  the  testimony  now  on  file  and  forwarded  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  for  transmittal  to  Congress  at  its  next  session,  as  required  by  law. 

All  documents  and  proofs  in  support  of  the  claim  must  be  in  legal  form,  consisting  of : 

First — Of  the  sworn  declaration  of  the  claimant,  setting  forth  when  and  where  the  dep- 
redation was  committed,  and  by  what  Indians,  their  tribe  or  nation  being  named;  describ- 
ing fully  the  property  stolen  or  destroyed,  and  giving  the  quantity  of  each  article,  or 
number,  condition,* or  quality  thereof,  and  the  just  value  of  each  article  or  piece  of  prop- 
erty at  the  time  the  same  was  so  taken  or  destroyed.    Should  the  depredation  have  been 


435 

committed  while  the  claimant  was  in  the  Indian  country,  he  must  state  whether  he  was 
lawfully  there,  either  having  a  license  to  trade  with  the  Indians,  a  passport,  or  a  permit 
from  the  proper  Indian  authorities,  or  was  en  route  through  said  country  to  a  place  of  ulti- 
mate destination  at  some  point  within  the  limits  of  any  State  or  Territory  not  included 
within  the  limits  of  the  reservation  for  any  nation  or  tribe  of  Indians  set  apart  by  treaty 
provision  or  by  executive  order;  and  he,  in  such  declaration,  must  further  state  whether 
any  of  the  property  so  stolen  or  destroyed  has  subsequently  been  recovered  by  or  for  him, 
the  claimant;  and  whether  the  claimant  has  at  any  time  received  part  compensation 
therefor,  and,  if  so,  how  much,  when,  and  from  what  source;  and  further,  that  the  claim- 
ant has  in  no  way  endeavored  to  obtain  private  satisfaction  or  revenge. 

Second — Of  depositions  of  two  or  more  persons  having  personal  cognizance  of  the  facts 
or  any  of  them,  as  embraced  in  the  declaration  of  the  claimant,  which  depositions  must 
set  forth  the  means  of  knowledge  which  deponents  have  as  to  the  fact  of  the  depredation, 
when,  where,  by  what  Indians,  and  under  what  circumstances  the  depredation  was  com- 
mitted, what  the  property  consisted  of  that  was  so  taken  or  destroyed  by  the  Indians, 
describing  it  as  fully  as  practicable,  and  stating  the  value  thereof,  if  the'  deponents,  or 
any  of  them,  were  at  the  time  of  the  depredation  in  the  employment  of  the  claimant,  it 
must  be  so  stated,  and  in  what  capacity.  In  addition  to  the  foregoing,  the  claimant  must 
show,  by  his  own  evidence,  or  that  of  other  persons,  that  at  the  time  the  depredation  was 
committed  the  property  then  stolen  or  destroyed  was  being  properly  guarded  and  cared 
for,  and  that  the  loss  thereof  was  not  occasioned  by  the  negligence  or  carelessness  of  him- 
self or  employes. 

Commissioner. 

While  the  Government  is  thus,  by  neglecting  to  make  appropriations, 
ignoring  the  claims  of  its  own  citizens  it  is  careful  to  protect  the  rights  of 
the  Indians.  Provision  is  made  by  law  for  the  recovery  from  any  white 
person  of  twice  the  value  of  any  property  of  an  Indian  taken,  injured,  or 
destroyed  by  such  white  person  and  for  the  payment  of  the  just  value  of 
such  property  from  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  if  the  offender  is 
unable  to  pay  the  same  or  can  not  be  apprehended  and  brought  to  trial. 
These  provisions  are  found  in  Sections  2154  and  2155  of  the  Revised  Stat- 
utes, which  are  as  follows: 

Sec.  2154.  Whenever,  in  the  commission,  by  a  white  person,  of  any  crime,  offense,  or 
misdemeanor  within  the  Indian  country,  the  property  of  any  friendly  Indian  is  taken, 
injured,  or  destroyed,  and  a  conviction  "is  had  for  such  crime,  offense,  or  misdemeanor, 
the  person  so  convicted  shall  be  sentenced  to  pay  to  such  friendly  Indian  to  whom  the 
property  may  belong,  or  whose  person  may  be  injured,  a  sum  equal  to  twice  the  just  value 
of  the  property  so  taken,  injured,  or  destroyed. 

Sec.  2155.  If  such  offender  shall  be  unable  to  paj^  a  sum  at  least  equal  to  the  just  value 
or  amount,  whatever  such  payment  shall  fall  short  of  the  sum  shall  be  paid  out  of  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States.  If  such  offender  can  not  be  apprehended  and  brought  to 
trial,  the  amount  of  such  property  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  Treasury.  But  no  Indian  shall 
be  entitled  to  any  payment  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  for  any  such  prop- 
erty, if  he,  or  any  of  the  nation  to  which  he  belongs,  have  sought  private  revenge,  or  have 
attempted  to  obtain  satisfaction  by  any  force  or  violence. 

The  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs  at  the  present  session  has  reported 
upon  two  bills,  one  (S.  145)  for  the  relief  of  James  Bainter,  and  the  other 
(S.  146,  report  No.  130)  for  the  relief  of  George  S.  Comstock,  upon  what 
appears  to  me  to  be  a  new  theory  for  getting  rid  of  this  class  of  claims. 
The  reports  in  these  two  cases  are  substantially  alike.  The  one  in  the  case 
of  George  S.  Comstock  is  as  follows: 

The  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (S.  146)  for  relief  of 
George  S.  Comstock,  have  considered  the  same,  and  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  given  in  the  inclosed  letter,  which  is  made  part  of  this 
report,  they  recommend  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the  bill. 

Department  of  the  Interior,  Office  of  Indian  Affairs,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  February  11, 1886.  ) 

Sir:  1  am  in  receipt,  by  reference,  of  your  letter  of  the  sixth  instant,  addressed  to  the 
honorable  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  referring  bill  (S.  146)  for  the  relief  of  George  S.  Com- 
stock, with  a  request  for  such  information  relative  thereto  as  this  Department  may  pos- 
sess, and  in  reply  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  it  appears  from  the  records  of  this  office 
that  a  claim  of  ^George  S.  Comstock,  amounting  to  $18,908  53  on  account  of  depredations 
alleged  to  have  been  committed  by  Cheyenne  and  Sioux  Indians,  on  the  ninth  and  tenth 


436 

days  of  August,  1864,  was  filed  in  this  office  June  22,  1882;  on  the  eighth  July  following 
the  claim  was  transmitted  to  United  States  Indian  Agent  McGilly cuddy,  at  Pine  Ridge 
agency,  Dakota,  with  directions  to  carefully  examine  all  the  facts  connected  therewith,  and, 
after  submitting  the  same  to  the  Indians  m  council,  to  report  the  result,  together  with  his 
recommendation  of  allowance  or  disallowance.  Under  date  of  January  21,  1884,  Agent 
McGrilly cuddy  returned  the  claim  with  his  report,  recommending  favorable  action.  On 
the  second  of  February  following,  the  report  of  this  office,  recommending  an  allowance  of 
$12,404  36,  to  be  paid  from  moneys  due  Sioux  of  different  tribes,  including  Santee  Sioux  of 
Nebraska,  was  submitted  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of  this  Department,  and  by  him 
transmitted  under  date  of  February  15,  1884,  to  the  Speaker  House  of  Representatives,  and 
api^ears,  by  Executive  Document  No.  102,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session,  to  have 
been  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs. 

The  claim  was  returned  to  this  office  for  reexamination  in  pursuance  to  the  provisions 
of  the  Act  approved  March  3,  1885,  and  was  again  examined  and  reported  to  the  honorable 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  under  date  of  November  thirtieth  last,  with  the  reconfmenda- 
tion  that  the  claim  be  dismissed  as  barred  by  force  of  the  seventeenth  section  of  the  Act 
approved  June  30,  1834  (4  Statutes,  731,  732),  and  the  recommendation  for  disallowance 
was  concurrred  in  by  the  honorable  Secretary,  under  date  of  tenth  December  last. 

The  papers  in  the  case  are  now  on  file  in  this  office.    Senate  Bill  146  is  herewith  returned. 

Respectfully, 

J.  D.  C.  ATKINS,  Commissioner. 

Hon.  H.  L.  Dawes,  Chairman  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs',  United  States  Senate. 

Section  17  of  the  Act  of  June  30,  1834,  referred  to  in  this  report,  was 
what  is  now  Section  2156  of  Revised  Statutes.  It  contained  the  clause  by 
which  the  United  States  guaranteed  to  the  party  injured  by  the  taking  or 
destroying  of  his  property  by  Indians  an  eventual  indemnification,  and 
also  the  following  proviso: 

Provided,  That  if  such  injured  party,  his  representative,  attorney,  or  agent,  shall  in  any 
way  violate  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act  by  seeking  or  attempting  to  obtain  private 
satisfaction  or  revenge,  he  shall  forfeit  all  claim  upon  the  United  States  for  such  indem- 
nification ;  and  provided,  also,  that  unless  such  claim  shall  be  presented  within  three  years 
after  the  commission  of  the  injury,  the  same  shall  be  barred;  and  if  the  nation  or  tribe  to 
which  such  Indian  may  belong  receive  an  annuity  from  the  United  States,  such  claim 
shall  at  the  next  payment  of  the  annuity  be  deducted  therefrom  and  paid  to  the  party 
injured,  and  if  no  annuity  is  due  to  such  nation  or  tribe  then  the  amount  of  the  claim 
shall  be  paid  from  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States. 

These  provisions  for  the  payment  of  claims  out  of  the  Treasury  and  out 
of  annuities  were  repealed  by  the  Acts  of  February  28,  1859,  and  July  15, 
1870.  When  these  provisions  were  repealed  the  limitation  of  the  statute, 
in  my  judgment,  ceased  to  be  of  force.  After  such  repeal  there  could  be  no 
payment  of  such  claims  without  the  authority  of  Congress,  and  a  statute  of 
limitation  against  Congressional  action  would  be  useless.  That  part  of  the 
statute  was  not,  therefore,  included  in  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  if  in  force 
when  the  Revised  Statutes  were  enacted  was  expressly  repealed  by  Section 
5596.  The  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  and  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior, however,  notwithstanding  the  claims  in  question  were  presented  and 
audited  by  their  predecessors  under  the  rules  prescribed  by  the  Interior 
Department  and  reported  to  Congress  for  its  action  have,  upon  reexamina- 
tion of  the  claims,  discovered,  as  they  suppose,  that  they  are  barred  by  a 
statute  of  limitations  which  originally  applied  to  the  payment  of  claims  by 
the  Department  without  Congressional  action  and  which  has  long  since 
ceased  to  be  operative,  and  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs  appears  to 
have  adopted  the  views  of  the  Department. 

Since  the  provisions  for  the  payment  of  these  claims  out  of  the  Treasury 
and  out  of  annuities  were  repealed  and  claimants  could  only  look  to  Con- 
gress for  legislation  authorizing  their  payment  it  would  be  palpably  unjust 
to  apply  any  statute  of  limitation  to  them  or  to  discriminate  between  claims 
equally  meritorious.  If  after  the  long  delay  of  Congress  to  act  upon  these 
claims,  and  after  the  Government  has,  by  a  course  of  conduct  continued 
for  over  a  quarter  of  a  century,  induced  these  claimants  to  believe  their 


437 

claims  are  just  and  that  they  would  be  paid  by  the  Government,  they  are 
not  to  be  paid,  some  better  excuse  should  be  found  than  that  they  were  not 
presented  in  time. 

I  have  examined  the  debates  in  Congress  upon  the  subject  of  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  Government  to  protect  its  citizens  against  depredations  by  the 
Indian  tribes  and  to  pay  them  for  losses  incurred  by  such  depredations, 
and  I  am  surprised  to  find  that  neither  when  the  general  laws  under  which 
the  Government  indemnify  its  citizens  for  such  losses  prior  to  the  passage 
of  the  Act  of  1859,  providing  that  depredation  claims  should  not  there- 
after be  paid  out  of  the  Treasury,  nor  when  the  Act  of  1871  providing  that 
such  claims  should  no  longer  be  paid  from  annuities  due  the  tribes  com- 
mitting the  depredations  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  or  when  any  of 
the  private  Acts  for  the  payment  of  such  claims  which  have  been  passed 
were  under  consideration,  was  there  any  considerable  discussion  of  the 
principles  upon  which  such  indemnity  should  be  made  or  withheld.  Con- 
gress appears  to  have  assumed  that  such  an  obligation  existed  and  to  have 
acted  upon  it  for  over  sixty  years  after  the  organization  of  the  Government 
and  to  have  suddenly,  without  much  consideration  or  discussion,  changed 
its  policy  and  repudiated  its  obligations  to  its  citizens  in  this  regard  if  one 
exists. 

I  find  myself,  therefore,  compelled,  in  support  of  the  proposition  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to  afford  protection  to  its  citizens 
against  Indian  depredations,  and  to  make  good  their  losses  arising  from 
inadequate  protection,  except  in  so  far  as  the  uniform  course  of  the  Gov- 
ernment prior  to  1859  tends  to  show  the  existence  of  such  an  obligation, 
to  resort  to  first  principles.  I  admit  that  the  obligation,  if  it  exists,  must 
be  traced  to  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  afford  protection  to  each  of  its 
citizens  in  the  enjoyment  of  life,  liberty,  and  property,  which  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  the  social  compact.  I  need  not  stop  to  show  that  such  a 
general  obligation  exists.  Government  is  organized  society.  The  word 
designates  the  aggregate  powers,  whatever  the  form,  to  which  the  exercise 
of  sovereignty  belongs  in  a  State.  It  can  exist  no  longer  than  it  can  com- 
pel the  submission  of  all  the  citizens  of  the  State  to  its  authority,  expressed 
in  accordance  with  the  fundamental  law  which  constitutes  the  social  com- 
pact. 

Submission  to  the  Government  is  the  primary  obligation  of  the  citizen, 
and  protection  of  the  citizen  is  the  correlative  obligation  of  the  Government. 
Theoretically,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  afford  protection  to  all 
its  citizens  in  the  enjoyment  of  life,  liberty,  and  property,  not  only  within 
its  borders,  but  everywhere  they  may  lawfully  go.  While  its  obligation  to 
afford  protection  is  sometimes  by  law  devolved  by  the  State  upon  municipal 
corporations  intrusted  with  certain  powers  of  Government,  the  duty  is  the 
duty  of  the  State,  the  power  so  exercised  being  derived  from  the  State. 
The  Government  of  the  United  States  forms  no  exception  to  this  general 
rule.  Within  the  powers  conferred  upon  it  by  the  Federal  Constitution  and 
for  the  purposes  of  its  creation  it  demands  the  allegiance  of  the  citizen, 
and  to  the  extent  of  those  powers  it  owes  every  citizen  protection.  As 
Congress  has  power  "  to  declare  war,"  "  to  raise  and  support  armies,"  "  to 
provide  and  maintain  a  navy,"  and  the  States  are  prohibited  from  keeping 
ships  or  troops  in  time  of  peace,  from  entering  into  any  agreement  or  com- 
pact with  another  State,  or  with  a  foreign  power,  or  to  engage  in  war,  it 
becomes  the  evident  duty  of  the  General  Government  to  protect  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  in  the  enjoyment  of  life,  liberty,  and  property  against 
foreign  powers  and  their  citizens  and  subjects,  and  the  obligation  of  the 
Government  to  do  this  has  never  been  denied,  and  in  the  discharge  of  this 


438 

obligation  it  has  declared  war,  called  into  use  the  army  and  navy,  taxed 
the  people,  and  borrowed  money  upon  the  public  credit. 

The  Senator  from  Georgia,  during  the  discussion  of  the  educational  bill, 
cited  an  Act  of  Congress,  approved  by  President  Washington,  appropriating 
$4,539  06  to  indemnify  citizens  of  the  United  States  for  money  paid  by  them 
as  a  ransom  to  the  Government  of  Algiers  (Act  approved  May  30,  1796). 
This  Act  was  but  a  recognition  of  an  obligation  of  the  Government  to  its 
citizens;  which,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  never  been  repudiated  in  similar 
cases.  The  United  States  have  never  failed  to  demand  of  foreign  nations 
satisfaction  for  injuries  done  by  such  foreign  nations  or  their  subjects  to  the 
persons  or  property  of  its  citizens.  The  war  with  Algiers  was  waged  for 
the  purpose  of  punishing  that  State  for  depredations  upon  our  commerce 
and  the  unlawful  imprisonment  of  our  citizens.  The  war  of  1812  was 
caused  by  the  interference  of  Great  Britain  with  the  rights  of  our  merchant 
•marine  and  of  our  sailors;  and  to-day,  should  the  most  powerful  nation 
upon  the  earth,  or  the  citizens  of  that  nation,  upon  the  high  seas  or  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  such  nation,  where  our  citizens,  under  treaty  stipulation, 
have  a  lawful  right  to  go  for  pleasure  or  profit,  forcibly  take  or  destroy  the 
property  of  an  American  citizen,  and  refuse  to  make  restitution  or  submit 
the  matter  to  arbitration,  war  would  be  declared  against  that  nation,  and 
the  administration  which  should  refuse  to  demand  indemnity  for  such  an 
outrage  would  be  hurled  from  power  by  an  indignant  people. 

The  obligation  of  a  government  to  protect  its  citizens  in  a  foreign  country 
is  thus  cited  by  Wheaton  on  International  Law  (Boyd's  edition,  page  207): 

The  American  citizen  who  goes  into  a  foreign  country  is  entitled  to  the  protection 
of  our  Government;  and  if,  without  the  violation  of  any  municipal  law,  he  should  be 
unjustly  oppressed,  he  would  have  a  right  to  claim  protection  of  his  Government,  and  the 
interference  of  the  American  Government  in  his  favor  would  be  considered  a  justifiable 
interference. 

This  is  from  Halleck  (page  276) : 

If  a  State  should  neglect  to  enact  the  requisite  laws  to  restrain  its  subjects  and  citizens 
from  systematic  and  repeated  aggressions  upon  the  rights  of  others,  and  to  enforce  such 
laws  when  made,  it  not  only  exposes  itself  to  the  just  hostility  of  the  parties  aggrieved, 
but  virtually  becomes  an  oiitlaw  from  the  society  of  nations,  and,  by  the  well  established 
principles  of  international  jurisprudence,  is  liable  to  be  attacked  and  punished  by  all. 

This  is  from  another  American  authority,  Woolsey  (§  62) : 

Foreigners  admitted  into  a  country  are  subject  to  the  laws.  They  are  *  *  *  entitled 
to  protection,  and  failure  to  secure  this  or  any  act  of  oppression  may  be  a  ground  of  com- 
plaint, of  retorsion,  or  even  of  war,  on  the  part  of  their  native  country. 

Vattel  states  the  principle  thus: 

If  a  nation  should  refuse  or  fail  to  pass  the  laws  necessary  to  restrain  its  citizens  from 
aggression  upon  other  States,  or  upon  their  citizens;  or  if,  such  laws  being  enacted,  the 
officers  of  the  State  neglect  to  enforce  them,  and  such  aggressions  by  individuals  result 
therefrom,  the  State  is  unquestionably  responsible  for  the  injury. 

Hall,  a  recent  writer  in  England,  says: 

Prima  facie  a  State  is,  of  course,  responsible  for  all  acts  or  omissions  taking  place  within 
its  territory,  by  which  another  State  or  the  subjects  of  the  latter  are  injuriously  affected. 
*  *  *  If  the  acts  done  are  imdisguisedly  open  or  of  common  notoriety,  the  State  is 
obviously  responsible  for  not  using  proper  means  to  repress  them.  As  obviously  it  becomes 
responsible,  by  way  of  complicity,  after  the  act,  if  it  does  not  inflict  punishment  to  the 
extent  of  its  legal  powers. 


439 
Phillimore  says  (Volume  II,  chapter  2) : 

The  State  to  which  the  foreigner  belongs  may  interfere  for  his  protection  when  he  has 
received  positive  maltreatment,  or  when  he  has  been  denied  ordinary  justice  in  the  for- 
eign country.  The  State  of  the  foreigner  may  insist  upon  reparation  immediately  in 
the  former  case.  In  the  latter  the  State  must  be  satisfied  that  its  citizen  has  exhausted 
the  means  of  legal  redress  afforded  by  the  tribunals  of  the  country  in  which  he  has  been 
injured.  If  those  tribunals  are  unable  or  unwilling  to  entertain  or  adjudicate  upon  his 
grievance,  the  ground  for  interference  is  fairly  laid.  But  it  behooves  the  interfering  State 
to  take  the  utmost  care:  first,  that  the  commission  of  the  wrong  be  clearly  established; 
secondly,  that  the  denials  of  the  local  tribunals  to  decide  the  question  at  issue  be  no  less 
clearly  established.  It  is  onlj^  after  these  propositions  have  been  irrefragably  proved  that 
the  State  of  the  foreigner  can  demand  reparation,  and  it  is  not  until  after  the  executive, 
as  well  as  the  judicial,  authorities  have  refused  redress,  that  recourse  can  be  had  to  repri- 
sals, much  less  to  war. 

Our  relations  with  the  Indian  tribes  are  as  much  under  the  exclusive 
power  of  the  General  Government  as  our  relations  with  foreign  nations. 
Congress  has  power  under  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  has  always  exercised 
it,  to  regulate  commerce  with  the  Indian  tribes.  If  the  relations  between 
the  United  States  and  the  Indians  are  in  any  sense  similar  to  those  between 
the  United  States  and  foreign  nations,  then  it  is  the  duty  of  the  General 
Government  to  afford  its  citizens  protection  against  the  Indian  tribes;  but 
I  shall  proceed  to  show  that  such  is  not  the  true  relation,  and  that  the  obli- 
gation of  the  Government  in  this  regard  rests  upon  stronger  grounds. 

Predicated  upon  the  fourth  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitution, 
which  provides: 

The  United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a  republican  form  of 
Government,  and  shall  protect  each  of  them  against  invasion,  and  on  application  of  the 
Legislature,  or  of  the  Executive  (when  the  Legislature  can  not  be  convened),  against 
domestic  violence — 

And  upon  the  latter  part  of  the  tenth  section  of  the  first  article  of  the 
Constitution,  which  is  as  follows: 

No  State  shall,  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  lay  any  duty  of  tonnage,  keep  troops, 
or  ships  of  war  in  time  of  peace,  enter  into  any  agreement  or  compact  with  another  State, 
or  with  a  foreign  power,  or  engage  in  war,  unless  actually  invaded,  or  in  such  imminent 
danger  as  will  not  admit  of  delay. 

The  States  and  Territories  have  always  preferred  claims  against  the 
General  Government  for  expenses  incurred  by  them  on  account  of  volunteers 
and  militia  called  out  for  their  protection  against  hostile  Indians,  and  where 
the  emergency  was  such  as  to  require  action  before  the  United  States  could 
or  did  take  effective  measures  for  their  protection  there  is  an  unbroken  line 
of  precedents  for  the  payment  of  such  claims  by  the  General  Government- 

For  every  wrong  there  should  be  a  remedy.  If  one  citizen  of  a  State 
injures  another  in  person  or  property  the  State  ought  to  provide  for  the 
redress  of  that  wrong  by  legal  methods;  and  whenever  the  State,  or  muni- 
cipal corporation  within  a  State,  fails  to  afford  such  reasonable  protection 
as  is  within  its  powers  to  the  citizen,  the  State  or  municipal  corporation 
upon  the  plainest  principles  of  justice  should  be  required  to  indemnify  the 
citizen  for  any  loss  sustained  by  reason  of  such  failure. 

The  States  are  powerless  under  the  Federal  Constitution  to  protect  their 
citizens  from  the  Indian  tribes.  It  is  true  that  in  case  of  actual  Indian 
hostilities  they  may  repel  invasion  and  drive  the  murderous  savages  back 
to  their  cities  of  refuge — the  reservations — but  within  them  they  are  safe 
under  the  protecting  aegis  of  the  Federal  authority.  The  States  can  not 
demand  or  enforce  satisfaction  from  the  Indians  for  the  losses  sustained  by 


440 

their  citizens.  The  Federal  Government  interposes  itself  between  the  States 
and  their  citizens  to  shield  the  Indians  from  the  ordinary  and  natural  con- 
sequences of  their  acts.  The  citizen  can  not  justly  demand  that  recourse 
against  the  State  which  is  allowed  by  the  laws  of  many  countries  and  many 
of  the  States  for  losses  occasioned  by  lawlessness  and  violence,  and  can  only 
look  to  the  Federal  Government  for  redress.  Laws  providing  for  making 
good  at  the  public  expense  the  losses  of  those  who  have  been  so  unfortunate, 
as,  without  their  own  fault,  to  be  injured  and  to  suffer  the  loss  of  their  prop- 
erty by  acts  of  lawlessness  and  violence  which  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
Government  to  prevent,  have  existed  from  an  early  period. 

It  was  one  of  the  institutions  of  Canute  which  was  recognized  by  the 
Saxon  laws  that  when  any  person  was  killed  and  the  slayer  had  escaped, 
the  ville  should  pay  forty  marks  for  his  death,  and  if  it  could  not  be  raised 
in  the  ville  then  the  hundred  should  pay  for  it. 

In  the  statutes  of  Manchester  (13  Ed.  I,  chapter  1,  page  1)  provision  is 
made  touching  the  crimes  of  robbery,  murder,  and  arson  that  if  the  country, 
i.  e.,  the  jury,  would  not  answer  for  the  bodies  of  the  offenders,  the  people  ■ 
dwelling  in  the  county  were  to  be  amenable  for  the  robberies  and  the  dam- 
ages sustained,  so  that  the  whole  hundred  where  the  robbery  was  committed, 
with  the  franchise  thereof,  should  be  amenable. 

An  Act  for  consolidating  and  amending  the  laws  of  England  relative  to 
remedies  against  the  hundred  (7  and  8  Geo.  IV,  ch.  31)  repealed  several 
prior  Acts  providing  remedies  against  the  hundred  for  damage  occasioned 
by  persons  violently  and  tumultuously  assembled,  and  provided  a  new 
method  of  procedure.  As  the  hundreds  were  not  corporations  the  action 
was  to  be  brought  against  the  Constable,  and  the  judgment  being  rendered 
the  Sheriff  was  to  draw  his  warrant  on  the  County  Treasurer  for  the  amount 
of  the  recovery,  and  the  money  was  to  be  collected  by  taxation  from  the 
hundred  liable. 

An  Act  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the  State  of  New  York  entitled 
"An  Act  for  compensating  parties  whose  property  may  be  destroyed  in  con- 
sequence of  mobs  or  riots,"  passed  April  13,  1855,  provides  for  the  bringing 
of  an  action  to  be  prosecuted  to  judgment  according  to  the  usual  modes  of 
prosecuting  suits  against  cities  and  counties  by  persons  sustaining  losses  by 
destruction  of  property  by  mobs  or  riots,  and  under  its  provisions  judgments 
were  recovered  against  New  York  City  by  citizens  whose  property  was 
destroyed  by  the  draft  riots  of  1863. 

The  Legislative  Assembly  of  Pennsylvania,  by  an  Act  approved  May  31, 
1841,  made  the  city  of  Philadelphia  liable  for  property  destroyed  by  a  mob, 
and  that  Act  was  by  an  Act  approved  March  20, 1849,  extended  to  Allegheny 
County,  and  under  its  provisions  parties  whose  property  was  destroyed  by 
mobs  at  Pittsburgh  during  the  riots  of  July,  1877,  recovered  judgment  against 
the  county. 

Similar  statutes  are  in  force  in  the  following  States:  Kentucky,  Maine, 
Maryland,  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  Rhode  Island, 
South  Carolina,  and  Wisconsin. 

The  laws  of  these  States,  as  we  have  seen,  are  based  upon  a  policy  which 
is  coeval  with  the  laws  of  England. 

The  United  States  have  assumed  the  control  and  management  of  the 
Indians,  and  in  any  possible  view  of  the  case  should  be  held  liable  for  their 
torts.  If  it  be  made  to  appear  that  any  domestic  animal  is  vicious  and 
accustomed  to  do  hurt,  and  that  the  owner  has  been  notified  of  the  fact,  a 
duty  is  then  imposed  upon  him  to  keep  the  animal  secure,  and  he  is  respon- 
sible for  the  mischief  done  by  the  animal  in  consequence  of  a  failure  to 
observe  the  duty,  and  the  duty  to  protect  against  vicious  animals  is  imposed 


441 

upon  the  keeper  irrespective  of  ownership.  The  duty  of  one  who  should 
undertake  to  keep  a  dangerous  wild  animal  would  be  even  greater  than  that 
imposed  upon  the  keeper  of  a  vicious  animal. 

The  practical  relation  of  the  General  Government  to  the  Indian  tribes  has 
been  for  years  and  is  now  that  of  guardian  and  ward.  The  Government 
has  taken  and  exercised  control  of  the  persons  and  estates  of  the  Indians. 
The  general  rule  is  that  an  infant  is  responsible  for  his  torts  as  any  other 
person  would  be,  and  certainly  the  Indian  wards  of  the  Government  are 
entitled  to  no  greater  immunity  than  infants  under  guardianship.  The 
Indians  to-day,  whether  they  are  considered  as  owners  of  the  soil  of  the 
reservations  occupied  by  them  or  only  as  having  the  right  of  occupation^ 
which  must  be  extinguished  by  purchase  before  it  is  open  to  settlement 
under  the  land  laws,  are  wealthy.  Their  average  individual  wealth  is  prob- 
ably far  above  the  average  wealth  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  and 
of  any  other  civilized  country. 

The  total  number  of  Indian  reservations  in  1880  was  147;  total  acreage, 
154,436,302;  total  number  of  Indians,  exclusive  of  the  natives  of  Alaska, 
was  253_,934,  which  gives  about  603.41  acres  of  land  to  each  Indian.  The 
Government  is  from  year  to  year  extinguishing  the  right  of  occupancy  of 
its  Indian  wards  to  these  lands  and  paying  large  sums  to  the  Indians 
therefor;  it  also  makes  large  appropriations  from  the  Treasury  for  their 
support  and  education,  and  at  the  same  time  shields  their  property  from 
the  just  demands  of  its  citizens  for  losses  on  account  of  property  stolen  or 
destroyed. 

The  obligation  of  the  General  Government  to  support  and  educate  the 
Indian,  whatever  may  be  its  origin  or  extent,  is  a  national  obligation. 
There  is  no  reason  or  justice  in  assuming  that  it  must  be  discharged  at  the 
expense  of  individual  citizens,  and  whenever  the  National  Government 
refuses  to  pay  the  just  demands  of  its  citizens  against  the  Indian  tribes  out 
of  moneys  due  from  the  Government  to  such  tribes,  and  which  by  treaty 
stipulations  with  them  the  Government  has  a  right  to  retain  and  pay  to  its 
citizens  in  satisfaction  of  their  claims,  or  which,  according  to  international 
law,  it  would,  in  the  exercise  of  its  duty  to  protect  the  rights  of  its  citizens, 
have  the  power  to  retain,  and  pays  such  moneys  to  the  Indian  tribes  or 
expends  it  for  their  support  and  education,  it  discharges  a  national  obliga- 
tion at  the  expense  of  individual  claims,  and  upon  the  plainest  principles 
of  justice  must  be  substituted  for  the  Indian  tribes,  and  is  in  duty  bound 
to  make  satisfaction  to  its  citizens. 

By  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  France,  promulgated  by 
the  President  December  21,  1801,  the  United  States  was  relieved  from  cer- 
tain embarrassing  obligations  to  France  arising  under  the  treaty  of  alliance 
with  that  country  of  February  6,  1778,  and  the  treaty  of  amity  and  com- 
merce of  the  same  date,  which  obligations  were  no  less  than  to  guarantee 
the  possessions  of  France  in  America,  and  of  important  privileges  for  the 
armed  ships  of  France,  and  a  promise  of  American  convoy  to  French  com- 
merce, and  in  return  set  off  and  released  the  individual  claims  of  her 
citizens  against  the  French  Government  arising  from  the  spoliation  of  our 
commerce  by  France.  Eighty-four  years  afterward,  at  the  last  Congress, 
long  after  the  original  claimants  and  two  succeeding  generations  had  passed 
away.  Congress  provided  for  the  payment  of  the  private  claims  thus  bar- 
tered away  by  the  Government. 

On  January  17,  1870,  Mr.  Sumner  made  an  exhaustive  report  upon  these 
French  spoliation  claims,  in  which  the  grounds  of  the  liability  of  the  Gov- 
ernment were  clearly  and  forcibly  stated,  and  from  which  I  quote  the  fol- 
lowing: 


442 

Had  the  claims  on  each  side  been  "national,"  no  subsequent  question  could  have 
occurred,  for  each  would  have  extinguished  the  other  in  all  respects  forever.  It  was  the 
peculiarity  in  this  case  that  on  one  side  the  claims  were  "  national  "  and  on  the  other  side 
"individual."  But  a  set-off  of  "individual"  claims  against  "national"  claims  must,  of 
course,  leave  that  Government  responsible  which  has  appropriated  the  "  individual " 
claims  to  this  purpose.  The  set-ofF  and  mutual  release  is  between  nation  and  nation  ;  but 
if  the  claims  on  one  side  are  only  "  individual,"  and  not  "  national,"  the  nation  which,  by 
virtue  of  this  consideration,  is  released  from  "  national "  obligations  must  be  substituted 
for  the  other  nation  as  debtor,  so  that  every  "individual"  whose  claims  are  thus  appro- 
priated can  confidently  turn  to  it  for  satisfaction.  On  this  point  there  can  be  no  doubt, 
whether  we  regard  it  in  the  light  of  common  sense,  reason,  duty.  Constitution,  or 
authority. 

(1)  According  to  common  sense,  any  "  individual "  interest  appropriated  to  a  "  national  " 
purpose  must  create  a  debt  on  the  part  of  the  nation,  still  further  enhanced  if  through 
this  appropriation  the  nation  is  relieved  from  outstanding  engagements  already  the 
occasion  of  infinite  embarrassment,  and  hanging  like  a  drawn  sword  over  the  future. 

(2)  According  to  reason,  any  person  intrusted  with  the  guardianship  of  particular 
interests  becomes  personally  responsible  with  regard  to  them,  especially  if  he  undertakes 
to  barter  them  against  other  interests  for  which  he  is  personally  responsible.  Thus,  an 
attorney  sacrificing  the  claims  of  his  clients  for  the  release  of  his  own  personal  obligations 
becomes  personally  liable,  and  so  also  the  trustee  appropriating  the  trust  fund  for  any 
personal  interest  becomes  personally  liable.  All  this  is  too  plain  for  argument,  but  it  is 
applicable  to  a  nation  as  to  an  individual.  In  the  case  now  before  your  committee,  our 
(jrovernment  was  attorney  to  prosecute  "individual"  claims  of  citizens,  and  also  trustee 
for  their  benefit,  to  watch  and  protect  their  interests,  so  that  it  was  bound  to  all  the 
responsibilities  of  attorney  and  trustee,  absolutely  incapacitated  from  any  act  of  personal 
advantage,  and  compelled  to  regard  all  that  it  obtained,  whatever  form  of  value  it  might 
assume,  whether  money  or  release,  as  a  trust  fund  for  the  original  claimants. 

(3)  Duty,  also,  in  harmony  with  reason,  enjoins  upon  government  the  protection  of 
citizens  against  foreign  spoliations  and  the  prosecution  of  their  claims  to  judgment. 
Claimants  are  powerless  as  "  individuals."  Their  claims  are  effective  only  when  adopted 
by  the  nation.  This  duty,  so  ^obvious  on  general  principles,  was  reinforced  in  the  present 
case  by  the  special  undertakmg  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  already  adduced,  when  he  announced 
that  he  "had  it  in  charge  from  the  President  to  assure  the  merchants  of  the  United  States 
concerned  in  'foreign  commerce  and  navigation  that  due  attention  will  be  paid  to  any 
injuries  they  may  suffer  on  the  high  seas  or  in  foreign  countries."  Such  a  duty,  thus 
founded  and  thus  openly  assumed,  could  not  be  abandoned  on  any  inducement  proceed- 
ing from  France  without  a  corresponding  responsibility  toward  those  citizens  whose 
interests  were  allowed  to  suffer.  A  waiver  of  national  duty,  especially  where  made  for 
the  national  benefit,  must  entail  national  obligation. 

(4)  The  Constitution  also  plainly  requires  what  seems  so  obvious  to  common  sense, 
reason,  and  duty  when  it  declares  that  "  private  property  shall  not  be  taken  for  public  use 
without  just  compensation."  Here  "private  property,"  to  a  vast  amount,  was  taken  for 
"public  use,"  involving  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the  whole  country;  and  down  to  this  day 
the  sufferers  are  petitioning  Congress  for  that  "just  compensation"  solemnly  promised 
by  the  Constitution. 

(5)  Public  law  is  also  in  harmony  with  the  Constitution  in  this  requirement.  Accord- 
ing to  Vattel,  the  sovereign  may,  in  the  exercise  of  his  right  of  eminent  domain,  dispose 
of  the  property,  and  even  the  person,  of  a  subject,  by  a  treaty  with  a  foreign  power;  "  but," 
says  this  eminent  authority,  "  as  it  is  for  the  public  advantage  that  he  thus  disposes  of 
them,  the  State  is  bound  to  indemnify  the  citizens  who  are  sufferers  by  the  transaction." 
(Vattel,  Law  of  Nations,  Book  4,  ch.  2,  §12.)  Words  more  applicable  to  the  present  case 
could  not  be  employed. 

This  reasoning  applies  with  equal  force  to  the  case  under  consideration, 
in  which  the  United  States,  guardian  of  the  Indian  wards  and  of  the  inter- 
ests of  its  own  citizens,  to  save  expenditures  from  its  Treasury  on  account 
of  such  wards,  interposes  its  authority  to  prevent  the  appropriation  of  the 
property  of  its  wards  to  compensate  its  own  citizens  for  losses  arising  from 
the  torts  of  such  wards.     The  analogy  is  complete. 

In  the  discharge  of  its  obligation  to  protect  its  citizens  from  losses  from 
Indian  depredations,  the  Government  has  in  many  instances,  in  treaties 
with  the  Indian  tribes,  stipulated  for  the  payment,  out  of  annuities  coming 
to  such  tribes,  of  claims  against  them  for  depredations  committed  on  the 
property  of  white  men.  In  other  treaties  the  Indians  have  been  required 
to  agree  to  use  their  best  efforts  to  return  stolen  property  and  to  punish 
offenders.  In  others  the  United  States  has  stipulated  that  the  Indians 
should  be  paid  by  the  Government  for  depredations  committed  upon  their 
property  by  white  men.  I  will  submit,  at  the  close  of  my  remarks,  lists  of 
these  treaties. 


448 

Numerous  special  acts  for  the  payment  of  the  losses  of  citizens  on 
account  of  Indian  depredations  have  been  passed  by  Congress,  extending 
from  1819  up  to  last  session,  so  that  precedents  are  not  wanting  for  such 
payment,  even  since  the  provisions  for  the  payment  of  such  claims  out  of 
the  Treasury  and  out  of  annuities  without  special  appropriations  were 
repealed. 

I  have  prepared  a  list  of  such  special  Acts  (but  which  I  am  not  certain 
contains  them  all)  showing  in  each  case  whether  payment  was  made  out 
of  the  Treasury  or  from  Indian  annuities.  The  total  amount  of  the  appro- 
priations from  the  Treasury  is  $1,604,028  25.  The  total  appropriations 
from  Indian  annuities  is  $197,716  37.  These  totals  do  not  include  the 
sum  paid  under  the  general  laws  heretofore  referred  to. 

The  Senate  amendment  striking  out  of  the  Indian  Appropriation  Bill  of 
last  session  the  provisions  for  the  payment  of  sundry  depredation  claims, 
was  adopted,  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  general  legislation  upon  an 
appropriation  bill.  But  with  strange  inconsistency  the  Senate  Committee 
on  Appropriations  reported  the  Sundry  Civil  Appropriation  Bill  with  a 
clause  appropriating  $46,770  22  to  pay  H.  C.  Oburn,  out  of  annuities,  for 
depredations  committed  by  the  Cheyenne  and  Arapaho  Indians,  and  the 
bill  passed  with  the  provision. 

Able  reports  have  been  made  upon  some  of  the  private  bills  which  have 
been  passed  by  Congress  for  payment  of  such  claims,  in  which  the  grounds 
of  the  liabilit}''  of  the  Government  are  stated  with  much  force.  From 
Report  No.  780,  made  by  Mr.  Comingo  at  the  first  session  of  the  Forty-third 
Congress,  upon  the  bill  (H.  R.  3315)  for  the  relief  of  John  Fletcher,  I  quote 
the  following: 

Such  being  tlie  facts  in  the  case,  is  the  Government  liable  to  indemnify  claimant  for  his 
said  loss  ?  That  we  may  be  able  to  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  and  just  conclusion  in  the 
premises,  it  may  be  well  to  consider  the  relations  the  Indians  bear  to  the  Government,  and 
the  legislation  that  affects  that  relation.  Between  them  and  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  legislation  has  interjjosed  a  "high  wall  and  a  deep  ditch,"  and  has  thereby  left  the 
latter  without  remedy,  if  the  Government  is  not  liable  for  the  depredations  of  those  around 
whom  it  has  thrown  its  protecting  arms,  and  between  whom  and  its  citizens  it  has  inter- 
posed insuperable  barriers. 

The  Indians  have  long  been  regarded  and  treated  as  the  wards  of  the  Government. 
This  relation  was  recognized  and  acted  upon  almost  three  quarters  of  a  century  ago,  and 
at  no  time  since  has  it  been  disclaimed.  As  far  back  as  1802  our  ancestors  saw  the  propriety 
and  necessity  of  protecting  the  then  feeble  Kepublic  from  the  rapacity  and  violence  of  that 
race,  and  provided  means  of  indemnity  for  spoliations  committed  by  such  of  them  as 
were  in  "amity  with  the  United  States."    (2  Stat,  at  Large,  page  143.) 

This  liability  and  promise  to  indemnify  continued  as  a  part  of  the  written  law  of  the 
land  from  that  time  until  1859,  when,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  the  promise,  but  not  the 
liability,  was  revoked  by  Congress.  The  liability,  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  did 
not  depend  upon,  nor  was  it  created  by  the  promise.  It  existed  independent  of  the  latter— 
the  latter  being  a  simple  recognition  of  the  former;  and,  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee, 
the  liability  has  not  yet  been  ignored,  but  to  the  contrary  has  been  recognized  in  all  sub- 
sequent legislation  on  the  subject,  although  the  express  promise  of  indemnity  has  been 
recalled. 

The  Trade  and  Intercourse  Act  of  1834  expressly  repeals  that  of  1802  (4  Stats,  at  Large, 
page  734);  but  by  the  seventeenth  section  of  said  Act  (4  Stats,  at  Large,  page  731)  provi- 
sions are  made  for  full  indemnity,  and  the  same  is  guaranteed  by  the  Government.  This 
statute  remained  in  force  from  the  thirtieth  of  June,  1834,  to  the  twenty-eighth  of  Febru- 
ary, 1859,  at  which  time  it  was  repealed.    The  repealing  clause  is  as  follows : 

"Afid  be  it  further  enacted,  That  so  much  of  the  Act  entitled  "An  Act  to  regulate  trade  and 
intercourse  with  the  Indian  tribes,  and  to  preserve  peace  on  the  frontiers,"  approved  June 
30,  1834,  as  provides  that  the  United  States  shall  make  indemnification  out  of  the  Treasury 
for  property  taken  or  destroyed  in  certain  cases  by  Indians  trespassing  on  white  men,  a's 
described  in  said  Act,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  repealed;  provided,  however,  that  nothing 
herein  contained  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  impair  or  destroy  the  obligation  of  the 
Indians  to  make  indemnification  out  of  the  annuities,  as  prescribed  in  said  Act."  (11  Stats. 
at  Large,  page  401,  section  8.) 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  this  leaves  in  force  all  of  said  Act,  except  the  clause  that 
guarantees  indemnity  out  of  the  Treasury.  The  seventeenth  section  of  the  Act  of  June 
30,  1834,  contains  the  following  among  other  provisions : 


444 

^'Provided,  That  if  such  injured  partj',  his  representative,  attorney,  or  agent,  shall  in  any- 
way violate  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  by  seeking  or  attempting  to  obtain  private 
satisfaction  or  revenge,  he  shall  forfeit  all  claims  on  the  United  States  for  such  indemnifi- 
cation." 

Thus,  we  find  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  are  wholly  without  remedy  for  wrongs 
and  injuries  perpetrated  by  the  Indians  unless  by  reason  of  the  peculiar  relationship  they 
sustain  to  the  Government,  and  the  exclusive  guardianship  over  them,  assumed  by  the 
latter,  it  is  responsible  for  their  willful  and  unprovoked  trespasses. 

The  Act  of  July  15,  1870  (16  Stats,  at  Large,  section  4,  page  360),  forbids  the  use  of  any 
part  of  the  annuities  then  due,  or  thereafter  to  become  due  the  Indians  designated  in  the 
Act,  in  payment  of  claims  growing  out  of  their  depredations.  It  should  be  observed  that 
it  does  not  ignore  the  liability  of  the  Government  in  such  cases,  but  rather  recognizes  it, 
by  providing  that  claims  of  that  character  shall  not  be  paid  out  of  annuities,  and  that 
they  may  be  paid  by  a  special  appropriation  made  for  that  purpose  by  an  Act  of  Congress. 

The  section  last  referred  to,  reads  as  follows : 

"  That  no  part  of  the  moneys  hereby  appropriated  by  this  Act,  or  which  may  hereafter 
be  appropriated  in  any  general  Act  or  deficiency  bill  making  appropriations  for  the  cur- 
rent and  contingent  expenses  of  the  Indian  Department,  to  pay  annuities  due  to  or  to  be 
used  and  expended  for  the  care  and  benefit  of  any  tribe  or  tribes  of  Indians  named  herein > 
shall  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  any  claim  for  depredations  that  may  have  been  or  that 
may  be  committed  by  said  tribe  or  tribes,  or  any  member  or  members  thereof;  and  no 
claims  for  Indian  depredations  shall  hereafter  be  paid,  until  Congress  shall  make  special 
appropriations  therefor;  and  all  Acts  or  parts  of  Acts  inconsistent  herewith  are  hereby 
repealed." 

By  the  seventh  section  of  an  Act  approved  May  29, 1872  (17  Stats,  at  Large,  page  190)  the 
last  clause  of  the  foregoing  section  is  reenacted,  and  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior  to  prepare  and  publish  such  rules  and  regulations  as  he  may  deem 
necessary,  prescribing  the  manner  of  presenting  claims  for  compensation  for  depredations 
committed  by  Indians,  and  the  degree  and  character  of  the  evidence  necessary  to  support 
the  same,  and  to  report  to  Congress  at  each  session  thereof,  the  nature  and  character, 
etc.,  of  such  claims,  whether  allowed  by  him  or  not,  "and  the  evidence  on  which  the  action 
was  based. 

Provisions  are  thus  made  for  ascertaining  the  extent  of  injuries  that  may  be  inflicted 
on  citizens  of  the  United  States ;  the  result  of  these  injuries  we  call  claims,  and  we  provide 
that  they  may  be  paid  out  of  our  General  Treasury,  and  that  they  shall  not  be  paid  out  of 
the  annuities  due  or  to  become  the  Indians.  If  we  do  not  thereby  recognize  a  right  on 
the  part  of  those  who  suffer  from  the  depredations  of  these  people  to  recover  the  actual 
damages  they  may  sustain,  what  is  the  meaning  and  effect  of  all  this  legislation?  Why 
do  we  forbid  the  injured  to  redress  their  own  grievances?  and  why  lock  up  the  annuities 
of  those  who  despoil  our  citizens,  and  hold  out  a  pretended  promise  of  payment? 

Congress  may  make  appropriations  to  pay  these  losses.  This  is  plain.  But  it  is  insisted 
by  some  that  there  is  no  legal  liability  to  pay  them.  If  this  be  true,  when  did  the  liability 
cease  ?  Why  have  we  continued  to  pay  some  of  these  claims,  and  why  make  provisions  for 
prosecuting  them  in  the  manner  in  which  we  have  done?  and  why  do  we  provide  for  pay- 
ing them  out  of  the  Treasury  ?  If  they  are  not  valid  claims,  by  what  authority  can  we 
appropriate  money  out  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  them  ?  The  right  of  recovery  depends,  in 
each  case,  on  the  particular  facts  that  bear  upon  it.  In  this  respect  it  does  not  differ  from 
the  right  of  recovery  in  any  civil  action,  such  as  assumpsit,  covenant,  or  trespass. 

And  from  Report  No.  253,  made  by  Mr.  Mason  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives at  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  upon  the  bill  (H.  R.  2824)  for 
the  relief  of  William  Franklin  Grounds,  I  quote  the  following: 

Your  committee  are  satisfied  that  the  claim  of  Mr.  Grounds  is  a  just  one,  and  that  the 
Government  is  under  obligation  to  compensate  him  for  these  losses.  In  arriving  at  these 
conclusions,  your  committee  are  guided  by  numerous  legislative  precedents  in  cases  sim- 
ilar- to  this,  and  by  the  principles  declared  by  eminent  publicists.  They  believe  that  it 
would  be  in  violation  of  the  spirit  of  our  institutions  to  impose  on  one  citizen  the  burdens 
which  should  be  borne  by  all,  and  that  the  citizen  who  pays  taxes,  bears  arms,  serves  on 
juries,  and  bears  his  just  proportion  of  the  burdens  of  Government,  and  complies  with 
all  its  exactions,  is  entitled  to  security  in  person  and  property,  and  to  the  prompt  fulfill- 
ment by  the  Government  of  all  the  obligations  it  is  under  to'him  as  a  citizen. 

The  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs  of  the  United  States  Senate,  first  session,  Thirty-fourth 
Congress,  to  whom  was  referred  a  bill  authorizing  the  payment  of  certain  claims  for 
Indian  depredations,  and  which  the  equities  were  not  as  clear  and  strong  as  those  which 
exist  in  this  case,  say : 

The  spoliations  for  which  redress  is  now  sought  were  caused  by  predatorj'^  expeditions, 
undertaken  without  lawful  authority  and  without  cause,  as  likewise  without  the  usual 
formalities,  and  solely  with  the  view  to  plunder,  and  is  therefore  excepted  by  Vattel  and 
all  the  approved  publicists  from  the  principle  under  which  redress  is  here  sought  to  be 
derived,  and  brings  it  within  the  principle  under  which,  by  the  practice  of  all  civilized 
nations,  the  citizen  or  subject  has  been  held  entitled  to  indemnity,  and  under  which  this 
Government  has  uniformly  extended  redress.  (Senate  Report  No".  244,  first  session  Thirtj^- 
fourth  Congress,  vol.  2.) 


445 

These  great  principles  of  government  have  been  recognized  and  passed  into  a  compact 
between  this  Government  and  the  citizen  in  the  several  "  trade  and  intercourse  laws " 
enacted  by  Congress  in  1802,  1834,  and  1859.  Since  then  it  has  repeatedly,  in  the  hun- 
dreds of  private  Acts  for  relief,  recognized  its  obligations  to  pay  the  citizen  out  of  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States  for  losses  sustained  by  Indian  depredations.  It  has  gone 
even  further,  and  paid  friendly  Indians  for  losses  sustained  at  the  hands  of  hostiles  of 
the  same  tribe,  when  they  (the  hostiles)  failed  to  make  restitution  of  the  property  stolen, 
as  stipulated  in  the  articles  of  capitulation. 

The  law  of  1859  repealing  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  1834,  by  which 
the  United  States  guaranteed  eventual  indemnity  for  losses  on  account  of 
Indian  depredations,  and  which  provided  for  the  payment  of  such  claims 
out  of  the  Treasury,  was  an  amendment  to  the  Indian  Appropriation  Bill, 
and  passed  without  much  consideration  and  without  debate.  But  the  Act 
of  1870  provoked  more  discussion.  In  the  Senate  during  the  debate  upon 
the  bill,  Mr.  Thayer  of  Nebraska  said: 

Mr.  Thayer.  The  honorable  Senator  from  Iowa  and  the  honorable  Senator  from  Oregon 
say  that  in  some  cases  the  annuities  of  Indian  tribes  have  been  absorbed  in  meeting  these 
claims.  I  tell  those  two  Senators  that  the  property,  the  all  of  settlers  on  the  frontier  has 
been  destroyed  by  Indians ;  and  I  say  to  them  also  that  the  way  to  produce  an  eflfect  upon 
the  Indians  is  by  letting  them  know  that  if  they  commit  these  depredations  their  annuities 
shall  be  taken  to  pay  for  them.  That  is  the  only  way  in  which  you  will  reach  them.  That 
is  the  only  way  in  which  you  will  have  an  ettect  on  the  Indians  and  compel  them  to  cease 
their  depredations  on  the  settlers.  The  last  remedy  for  a  man  whose  property,  whose 
crops,  whose  horses,  and  whose  cattle  have  been  taken  from  him  by  Indians  is  to' tell  him 
to  come  to  Congress  and  wait  until  the  day  of  doom  before  he  can  get  satisfaction  or  com- 
pensation.   I  trust  that  this  whole  section  will  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  Tipton  said: 

Every  Senator  here  who  knows  anything  about  the  new  States  knows  that  when  a  band 
of  savages  pass  through  our  borders,  or  when  the  Indians  who  are  on  the  reservations 
pass  through  our  States,  there  is  nothing  that  protects  the  property  of  the  settler  so  well  as 
.  a  consciousness  on  the  part  of  the  chiefs  and  the  head  men  of  the  Indians  that  if  the  stock 
of  the  settler  is  killed,  if  his  crops  are  destroyed,  their  annuities  may  be  reached  and  they 
will  feel  it  in  their  pockets.  Nothing  so  completely  gives  protection  to  the  settler  as  that. 
Then,  when  their  young  men  spread  upon  the  prairies  and  roam  about  at  will,  when  they 
come  upon  the  cabin  of  a  settler  and  his  property  is  entirely  in  their  power,  they  will 
have  been  warned  by  those  in  authority  over  them  not  to  touch  it  or  the  value  of  the 
property  will  be  taken  out  of  their  annuities.  I  tell  you  that  gives  us  more  protection 
w^hen  they  pass  through  our  inhabited  counties  and  portions  of  our  States  than  anything 
else  you  can  devise.  But  let  it  be  understood  that  if  they  commit  depredations,  those 
who  complain  of  them,  if  they  can  make  a  case,  may  come  to  Congress  and  get  their  pay 
out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  and  who  cares  what  depredations  are  then  com- 
mitted? I  say  that  unless  this  section  be  stricken  out,  or  so  amended  that  the  redress 
shall  be  direct  upon  the  tribe  or  upon  the  annuities  of  the  tribe,  we  shall  have  very  little 
protection. 

Mr.  Williams  said: 

It  is  a  mistaken  pohcy,  in  my  judgment,  that  undertakes  to  throw  around  these  Indian 
tribes  the  protection  of  law  in  robbery,  a  thing  which  they  will  understand  just  as  well 
as  white  men.  It  will  not  be  long  before  the  Indians  will  know  that  they  can  with  im- 
punity make  inroads  upon  the  white  settlers  and  steal  their  horses  and  cattle,  and  carry 
them  away  and  make  use  of  them,  and  that  there  is  no  remedy  for  the  white  persons  so 
injured. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives  Mr.  Degener  said: 

1  am  not  a  lawyer,  but  common  sense  teaches  me  that  if  any  person  chooses  to  keep  a 
dangerous  animal  on  his  premises,  say  a  rattlesnake  in  his  room,  if  he  chooses  to  feed  it, 
chooses  to  provide  a  warm  blanket  for  that  rattlesnake,  so  that  it  may  not  suffer  from 
cold,  and  if  he  does  not  choose  to  extract  the  poisonous  fangs  of  that  animal,  then  he 
becomes  responsible  should  that  rattlesnake  escape  from  his  room  and  go  upon  the 
premises  of  his  neighbor  and  there  bite  his  neighbor,  or  his  neighbor's  wife,  or  his  children, 
or  his  cattle.    I  believe  that  common  sense  teaches  us  that  that  is  the  correct  principle. 


446 
Mr.  Wilkinson  said: 

The  principle  is  essentially  just,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  changing  the  existing  law 
except  the  clamor  which  has*^  arisen  on  account  of  the  reputation  that  the  Indian  Depart- 
ment has  had  before  the  country.  If  the  Indian  Department  stood  as  well  before  the 
country  as  the  Treasury  Department  there  is  not  a  man  in  this  House  who  would  think 
of  making  the  change  proposed  by  this  amendment. 

Mr.  Paine  said: 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  desirable,  if  possible,  to  so  regulate  the  payment  of  our  annuities 
to  the  Indians  that  we  may  avoid  the  difficulties,  the  animosities,  and  the  troubles  that 
will  be  sure  to  grow  out  of  the  collection  of  false  and  fictitious  and  sham  claims  against 
the  Indians.  If  there  were  an  absolute  certainty  that  only  just  claims  would  be  presented 
against  these  Indians,  if  we  were  sure  that  only  the  claims  of  honest  frontiersmen  whose 
property  had  actually  been  destroyed  or  stolen  would  be  presented  and  paid  out  of  the 
moneys  which  would  otherwise  be  devoted  to  the  payment  of  these  annuities,  then  I 
would  have  no  hesitation  in  allowing  the  law  to  stand  as  it  now  is.  But  there  is  the 
danger  that,  by  permitting  the  law  to  stand  as  it  now  is,  we  shall  give  encouragement  to 
the  prosecution  of  unjust  claims.  I  believe  everybody  understands  that  it  has  been  true 
that  large  numbers  of  outrageous  claims  have  been  presented  against  the  Indians; 
demands  made  by  men  who  set  themselves  deliberately  to  work  to  trump  up  claims 
upon  no  substantial  foundation,  for  the  purpose  of  robbing  these  Indians.  On  the  whole, 
for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  that  difficulty,  I  am  willing  to  encounter  another. 

And  during  the  debate  upon  the  Act  of  May  16,  1872,  Mr.  Harlan  of 
Iowa  said: 

Under  the  amendment  the  Senate  has  agreed  to,  the  last  amendment  preceding  this 
offered  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Nebraska,  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  to  examine  these  claims  and  report  them  to  Congress.  Then  Congress  can  make 
an  appropriation  to  pay  each  claim  that  is  specifically  reported  by  the  department.  It 
seems  to  me  that  would  be  much  safer  than  to  order  their  payment  out  of  the  appropri- 
ations made  to  feed  and  clothe  these  Indians  that  are  now  being  supported  by  the  Govern- 
ment and  have  no  other  resource  whatever,  except  preying  on  the  frontier  settlements. 

From  these  debates  it  is  apparent  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of  Con- 
gress by  the  Acts  of  1859,  1870,  and  1872  to  repudiate  its  obligations  to  its 
citizens  on  account  of  these  claims,  but  only  to  require  that  the  same 
should  not  be  paid  without  special  appropriation  by  Congress  for  that  pur- 
pose. The  statement  of  Senator  Thayer  that  the  "  last  remedy  for  a  man 
whose  property,  whose  crops,  whose  horses,  and  whose  cattle  have  been 
taken  from  him  by  the  Indians  is  to  tell  him  to  come  to  Congress  and  wait 
until  the  day  of  doom  before  he  can  get  satisfaction  or  compensation  "  was 
prophetic. 

The  discussion  in  the  Senate  of  the  amendment  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations,  to  strike  out  the  provisions  in  the  Indian  Appro- 
priation Bill  of  last  session  as  it  came  from  the  House  for  the  payment  of 
certain  depredation  claims  which  had  been  presented  to  the  Department  of 
the  Interior,  audited,  and  reported  to  Congress,  was,  I  think,  the  most 
extended  discussion  which  ever  took  place  in  Congress  upon  the  subject  of 
the  payment  of  such  claims,  and  no  Senator  during  that  discussion  ven- 
tured to  question  or  deny  the  obligation  of  the  Government  to  pay  such 
claims,  but  all  the  Senators  who  took  any  considerable  part  in  the  debate 
expressed  the  opinion  that  such  an  obligation  exists. 

Mr.  Plumb  said: 

While  I  say  that,  I  am  as  earnest  as  any  one  can  be  in  favor  of  the  Government  adopting 
a  rule  which  shall  result  in  the  payment  of  what  I  regard  as  justly  an  obligation  against 
the  Government  as  any  other  one  which  it  is  called  upon  to  respond  to.  There  are 
millions  of  dollars,  I  believe,  certainly  many  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars,  which  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  owes  to  claimants  all  over  the  country.    I  have  no  doubt 


447 

the  case  of  which  the  Senator  from  California  speaks  is  one,  to  a  certain  extent  at  all 
events ;  possibly  there  may  be  some  doubt  about  the  amount ;  but  in  all  these  cases  there 
ought  to  be  a  tribunal  provided  for  the  ascertainment  of  the  amount  due.  I  introduced 
a  bill  years  ago,  and  have  reintroduced  it,  to  have  an  auditing  of  these  claims  in  order 
that  they  might  come  before  Congress  not  as  objects  of  suspicion,  but  upon  their  true 
footing  as  genuine  existing  liabilities  against  the  Government,  and  having  had  all  the 
scrutiny  that  they  ought  to  have  preceding  their  allowance.  The  Committee  on  Appro- 
priations, for  the  purpose  of  bringing  about  this  result,  seized  upon  an  amendment  offered 
to  the  bill  in  the  House  and  so  reframed  it  as  they  believe  will  result  in  establishing  the 
validity  or  invalidity  of  these  claims  in  such  a  way  that  they  will  not  be  subject  to  objec- 
tion any  longer, 

Mr.  Dawes  said: 

Instead  of  committing  the  United  States  to  the  payment  of  particular  claims  by  paying 
fifteen  per  cent  upon  them  and  letting  all  this  vast  amount  remain  back  waiting'^for  that 
provision  to  go  through,  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  have  proposed,  on  page  47  of 
this  bill,  this  amendment,  which  1  beg  leave  to  read: 

*  ***  »*'*  •X-*  *  **** 

"For  the  investigatibn of  certain  Indian  depredations  claims,  $10,000;  and  in  expending 
said  sum  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  shall  cause  a  complete  list  of  all  claims  heretofore 
filed  in  the  Interior  Department,  and  which  have  been  approved  in  whole  or  in  part,  and 
now  remain  unpaid,  and  also  all  such  claims  as  are  pending,  but  not  yet  examined,  on 
behalf  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  on  account  of  depredations  committed,  chargeable 
against  any  tribe  of  Indians  by  reason  of  any  treaty  between  such  tribe  and  the  United 
States,  including  the  name  and  address  of  the  claimants,  the  date  of  the  alleged  depreda- 
tions, by  what  tribe  committed,  the  date  of  examination  and  approval,  with  a  reference  to 
the  date  and  clause  of  the  treaty  creating  the  obligation  for  payment,  to  be  made  and 
presented  to  Congress  at  its  next  regular  session;  and  the  Secretary  is  authorized  and 
empowered,  before  making  such  report,  to  cause  such  additional  investigation  to  be  made, 
and  such  further  testimony  to  be  taken,  as  he  may  deem  necessary  to  enable  him  to 
determine  the  kind  and  value  of  all  property  damaged  or  destroyed  by  reason  of  the 
depredations  aforesaid,  and  by  what  tribes  such  depredations  were  committed ;  and  his 
report  shall  include  his  determination  upon  each  claim,  together  with  the  names  and  resi- 
dences of  witnesses,  and  the  testimony  of  each,  and  also  what  funds  are  now  existing,  or 
to  be  derived  by  reason  of  treaty  or  other  obligation,  out  of  which  the  same  should  be 
paid." 

***  **  **  ***** 

The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  required  to  pass  upon  these  claims.  He  has  passed 
upon  them  in  the  past  in  the  manner  which  I  have  suggested.  He  has  not  had  the  money 
to  send  anybody  into  the  Territories,  where  it  has  been  alleged  that  these  depredations 
have  been  made.  He  has  the  power,  under  the  statute,  but  he  has  not  had  the  money; 
he  has  had  no  men  that  he  could  pay  for  that  purpose.  Therefore,  whenever  a  man  sent 
his  claim  up  here,  or  referred  it  to  the  agent  or  the  tribe,  when  the  agent  of  the  tribe  got 
the  affidavit  furnished  by  the  claimant  and  sent  them  up  here,  without  any  hearing  or 
cross-examination  whatever,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  has  written  "approved ;"  and 
the  claims  come  to  Congress,  thirty-one  hundred  of  them  in  a  single  letter,  amounting  to 
more  than  a  million  and  a  half  dollars,  and  a  dozen  of  them  were  put  upon  a  single  page 
in  this  bill,  by  the  other  branch,  with  a  stipulation  that  only  fifteen  per  cent  should  be 
paid.  Fifteen  per  cent  of  them  would  take  twice  as  much  as  the  very  Indians  upon 
whom  they  are  charged  have  got  in  the  Treasury ;  and  we  are  called  upon  in  this  bill, 
independent  of  that,  to  appropriate  some  $25,000  to  support  and  feed  these  very  Indians. 

I  submit  that  the  safest  way  is  the  one  proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Appropriations, 
and  that  any  other  way  is  unsafe,  unfair  to  other  claimants,  invidious,  unjust,  and  ground- 
less discrimination  in  favor  of  these  claims. 

Mr.  Coke  said: 

I  think,  Mr.  President,  that  a  proper  measure  of  justice  to  the  claimants  who  have 
suffered  from  Indian  depredations  would  suggest  to  the  committee  and  to  the  Senate  that 
the  claims  which  have  been  investigated  under  Acts  of  Congress  prescribing  the  mode 
and  manner  of  their  investigation,  which  are  on  file  in  the  Interior  Department,  and  have 
been  reported  to  Congress  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  approved  by  him  as  just  and 
honest  claims,  should  be  embraced  in  this" bill,  and  the  appropriations  made  to  pay  them. 
The  committee  propose,  by  their  amendment,  that  they  shall  be  reinvestigated.  Why 
reinvestigate  claims  which  have  already  been  fully  investigated?  We  must  presume 
that  they  have  been  fully  investigated,  because  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Indian  Affairs,  the  agents  and  superintendents  over  the  Indians,  all  had  authority 
to  make  the  investigations,  to  summon  witnesses  and  take  depositions,  and  upon  their 
investigation,  presumably  correctly  made,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  has  reported  a 
large  number  of  these  claims,  belonging  chiefly  in  Kansas,  Colorado,  and  Texas,  as  just 
and  approved  by  him. 


448 

The  committee  now  propose  to  reinvestigate  those  claims  after  a  lapse  of  from  fifteen  to 
twenty  years,  when  ail  the  testimony  has  gone,  possibly  when  the  facts  upon  which  the 
claims  are  founded  are  necessarily  obscured  from  loss  of  testimony  and  death  of  witnesses. 
There  is  no  justice  in  such  a  course. 

The  people  of  the  frontier  States  knew  that  they  had  no  recourse  against  the  Indians, 
except  what  Congress  gave  them,  and  Congress,  in  the  Acts  to  which  I  have  referred, 
prescribed  certain  methods  which  they  have  pursued.  They  submitted  themselves  fully 
to  the  jurisdiction  prescribed;  and  now,  after  their  claims  have  been  approved  by  the 
tribunal  appointed  by  Congress,  their  witnesses  dead  or  scattered,  they  are  to  be  called 
upon  to  again  come  forward  and  resubstantiate  the  same  claims  already  adjudicated  and 
on  file  in  the  Department  and  reported  approved  to  Congress. 

************ 

I  know  something  about  these  claims  for  Indian  depredations.  I  know  that  the  frontier 
of  Texas  was  at  one  time  driven  back  seventy-five  miles  by  hostile  Indians  from  the  Fort 
Sill  reservation,  where  they  were  under  the  care  and  control,  and  management  and  pro- 
tection of  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  The  people  of  Texas  dared  not  go  upon 
that  reservation  to  retaliate.  They  could  have  gone  there  and  wiped  out  the  Indians,  but 
the  United  States  Government  protected  them.  Whenever  a  full  moon  shone  at  night 
they  came  down  upon  Texas,  drove  off  cattle  and  horses,  burned  houses,  and  killed  and 
scalped  men,  and  carried  women  and  children  into  captivity. 

************ 

I  have  no  doubt  that  the  same  experience  was  realized  by  all  the  other  frontier  States. 
I  have  personal  knowledge  of  the  fact  that,  until  the  State  of  Texas  organized  a  battalion 
of  State  troops  and  sent  them  to  the  frontier  and  protected  the  settlers  against  the  Indians, 
the  frontier  was  almost  abandoned.  I  know  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  men  in  Texas 
who  had  thousands  of  head  of  cattle  and  hundreds  of  head  of  horses,  who  lost  every 
dollar's  worth  of  property  they  had  by  the  depredations  of  those  Indians.  Yet  the  Sen- 
ator from  Massachusetts  would  cast  an  imputation  upon  the  justice  of  these  claims, 
examined  and  approved  as  they  have  been. 

****.***  **** 

As  the  Senate  Committee  on  Appropriations  determined  that  they  would  not  appropri- 
ate the  money  now  to  pay  these  claims,  that  they  would  not  put  these  claims  thus 
approved  and  reported  upon  this  bill,  then  I  believe  the  next  best  thing  for  them  to  do  was, 
as  the  committee  has  done,  require  a  full  report  of  all  these  claims  to  be  made  to  Congress 
at  the  next  session,  and  when  this  report  comes  in  and  we  see  what  they  all  amount  to,  I 
shall  favor,  and  I  believe  that  the  honor  of  the  Government  will  require,  that  Congress 
shall  take  steps  to  liquidate  them  at  once.  I  do  not  see  why  those  who  have  honest  claims 
for  Indian  depredations  should  be  sneered  at.  They  are  the  pioneers  of  the  country. 
They  have  gone  westward  until  we  have  no  frontier  left,  blazing  the  way  for  settlement 
and  civilization. 

Mr.  Manderson  said: 

Mr.  President,  I  certainly  quite  agree  with  the  suggestions  made  by  the  Senator  from 
Texas,  in  regard  to  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  pay  those  who  have  suffered  loss  on 
the  frontier  of  the  country  by  reason  of  Indian  depredations,  and  I  wish  to  supplement 
his  suggestion,  as  to  the  claims  mentioned  in  this  bill,  in  that  part  of  the  bill  which  has 
already  been  stricken  out  by  the  action  of  the  committee,  by  reading  from  a  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Claims.  It  was  stated  by  the  Senator  from  Tennessee  [Mr.  Jackson]  that 
the  claims  presented  in  this  bill  had  been  reported  adversely  bj^  the  committee.  That 
statement  is  truthful;  but  it  does  not  tell  all  the  truth.  The  inference  might  follow  that 
these  claims  were  rejected  because  of  lack  of  merit,  for  fraud,  or  because  the  parties  had 
not  suffered  the  losses  they  pretended  to  have  suffered ;  but  that  is  not  the  finding  of  the 
committee.  The  Committee  on  Claims,  following  the  action  of  the  Interior  Department, 
reports  as  to  these  claims,  and  I  read  from  the  report: 

"The  claimants  are  all  citizens  of  Texas,  generally  engaged  in  agriculture  or  stock 
raising,  quietly  and  peacefully  pursuing  their  avocations,  having  nothing  to  do  with  trade 
or  traffic  with  the  Indians,  and  in  no  way  connected  with  any  disturbance  between  whites 
and  Indians  there  or  elsewhere.  They  were  all  citizens  of  the  State  of  Texas,  and  while 
engaged  in  peaceful  pursuits  were  set  upon  by  bands  of  Indians  (who  were  supposed  to 
be  under  the  restraint  and  control  of  the  Government  on  their  reservations),  their  stock 
stampeded  and  driven  off',  and  other  property  destroyed  or  carried  away,  and  in  many 
cases  their  herders  killed  or  wounded.  They  have,  as  the  evidence  shows,  at  all  times 
refrained  from  any  violation  of  law  hy  taking  the  remedy  into  their  own  hands  and  giving 
blow  for  blow,  but  have,  in  compliance  with  the  laws  which  Congress  has,  from  time  to 
time,  passed  for  their  protection  and  indemnity,  made  out  their  claims,  supported  them 
by  ample  proof,  both  as  to  quantity  and  value,  and  have  presented  them  to  the  officers 
designated  by  the  Government  to  examine  into  their  justness  and  the  truthfulness  of  their 
statements;  and  those  officers,  after  having  sent  the  claims  to  the  agents  of  the  different 
tribes  to  be  presented  to  the  Indians  for  their  statements  in  regard  to  them,  and  after 
hearing  the  reports  of  those  agents  and  making  a  careful  examination  of  the  i)roofs 
offered  by  the  claimants,  have  allowed  them  the  various  sums,  for  payment  of  which 
the  claimants  now  ask  an  appropriation  by  Congress.'" 


449 

So  that  these  claims  have  not  been  allowed  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior  upon 
mere  ex  'parte  affidavits,  but  upon  full  investigation  and  with  a  chance  to  the  Indians 
themselves,  through  their  agents,  to  be  heard. 

They  are  taken  up  in  this  report,  and  although  the  committee  recognizes  their  merit 
and  the  obligation  upon  the  (government  to  pay  this  class  of  claims,  it  does  report 
adversely  to  them,  as  suggested  by  the  Senator  from  Tennessee,  in  this  language: 

"As  stated  in  your  committee's"^  report  upon  the  claim  of  Overton  and  Love,  there  are 
a  large  number  of  these  claims,  equally  meritorious,  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Indian  Affairs.  No  good  reason  can  be  given  for  paying  the  claims  under  con- 
sideration without  paying  them  all.  This  committee  cannot  recommend  the  passage  of 
such  claims  until  Congress  adopts  some  general  policy  of  dealing  with  all  these  claims.'* 

I  admit  that  the  suggestion  of  the  committee  is  a  wise  one.  All  of  these  claims  should 
be  dealt  with,  but  year  after  year  rolls  by  and  they  are  not  paid.  In  my  own  State  I  know 
of  existing  claims,  as  valid  and  as  meritorious  as  those  that  are  stated  in  the  report,  that  are 
nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  old,  for  depredations  committed  by  Indians  upon  frontiers- 
men who  were  invited  b}^  the  Government  to  go  upon  Government  land,  and  these  men 
driven  from  their  lands,  their  homes  destroyed,  and  in  frequent  instances  members  of 
their  families  killed  or  treated  worse  by  Indian  depredators,  remain  with  their,  serious 
losses  yet  unpaid. 

I  submit,  Mr.  President,  that  it  is  a  crying  shame  that  these  claims  have  not  been  paid. 

Mr.  Maxey  said : 

Mr.  President,  the  general  plan  for  efficient  aud  prompt  settlement  of  outstanding 
claims  proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Apx)ropriations  I  think  is  wise;  but  I  submit  to 
that  committee  and  to  the  Senate  whether  there  is  any  reason  why,  because  they  propose 
to  adopt  that  plan,  the  claims  which  have  been  allowed  by  the  House  and  which  come 
to  us  as  approved  claims  shall  be  stricken  out  of  the  bill.  In  other  words,  the  law  has 
always  favored  the  vigilant.  If  gentlemen  who  have  claims  have  gone  to  the  labor  and 
the  expense  of  gathering  up  their  testimony,  of  laying  it  before  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  of  having  their  claims  examined  and  approved  and  recommended  to  Congress, 
and  Congress  in  its  wisdom  allows  those  claims  and  the  bill  comes  to  us  with  those  claims 
thus  allowed,  I  ask  if  there  is  any  reason  or  propriety  in  striking  out  all  the  claims 
allowed,  as  found  on  pages  8, 9,  10,  etc.,  of  the  bill  which  comes  to  us  from  the  House,  sim- 
ply because  a  provision  is  made  by  the  Appropriations  Committee  for  a  general  settle- 
ment of  all  such  claims?  If  the  claims  which  are  allowed  are  just  in  themselves,  and  the 
Senator  in  charge  of  this  bill  does  not  gainsay  that  proposition ;  if  they  are  right  why 
should  they  be  struck  out  in  order  to  take  their  place  under  the  general  plan  of  settle- 
ment when  they  have  already  been  examined  and  approved  and  allowed  by  the  proper 
committee  of  the  House  as  just  and  proper  claims  ?  I  can,  therefore,  see  no  reason  why 
these  claims  shall  be  stricken  out,  nor  do  I  see  any  conflict  between  the  claims  which  are 
allowed  by  the  House  standing  as  a  part  of  this  bill  and  the  proviso  which  is  put  in  by 
the  Appropriations  Committee  of  the  Senate  in  respect  to  those  claims  which  are  not  as 
yet  allowed  or  have  not  been  sent  up  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  Republic  that  there  be  an  end  of  litigation,  and 
if  these  men  have  had  claims  litigated  and  passed  upon  and  they  have  been  allowed  by 
the  House,  why'should  they  be  stricken  out  of  the  bill  by  the  Senate?  Jt  is  not  pretended 
that  they  are  not  just  claims.  If  there  was  a  shadow  of  suspicion  cast  on  the  claims  there 
would  be  some  reason  in  that,  biit  there  is  none.  They  are  admitted  to  be  just,  they  are 
admitted  to  be  right,  but  they  are  simply  stricken  out  because  they  may  conflict  with 
the  plan  proposed  for  future  settlements.  These  claims  having  been  already  settled,  why 
should  they  be  relegated  to  the  future  to  be  settled  then?  I  cannot  see  any  reason  for 
that.    It  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  a  fair  proposition. 

Mr.  Miller  of  California  said  : 

What  I  object  to  is  this  practice  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  which  is 
unbecoming  a  great  government,  interposing  technical  objections  to  shilly-shally  around 
and  put  off  payment  in  the  manner  of  a  bankrupt  debtor  or  a  man  who  is  not  disposed  to 
pay  his  debts.  That  is  the  position  in  which  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  to-day 
are  putting  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  relation  to  the  citizens  who  holcl 
these  claims.  That  there  is  an  obligation  to  pay  these  claims  out  of  the  funds  held  in 
trust  by  the  Government  belonging  to  the  Indians,  there  can  be  no  doubt;  but  the  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations  or  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs  who  has 
charge  of  this  bill  seems  to  desire  to  put  off  the  payment  continually.  It  is  so  year  after 
year.  This  process  has  been  going  on  for  a  great  many  years,  and  when  we  are  con- 
fronted by  the  condition  of  things  then  we  invent  some  new  scheme,  some  new  plan  by 
which  these  claims  shall  be  put  ofl';  we  have  not  got  the  report  we  want,  or  there  is  some- 
thing lacking,  and  a  man  who  has  vigilantly  prosecuted  his  claim  and  has  had  it  adjudi- 
cated, and  the  amount  found  due  shall  not  be  paid  because  somebody  who  has  not  used 
the  time  diligently  and  whose  claim  has  not  been  adjudicated  is  not  paid,  and  that  fur- 
nishes a  reason  why  the  man  who  has  a  just  claim  which  has  been  adjudicated  shall  not 
be  paid.    That  seems  to  me  a  strange  position  to  take.    I  can  not  see  why  w^lien  a  claim 


450 

is  adjudicated  and  found  to  be  due  this  great  Government  should  desire  to  put  off  the 
day  of  payment,  and  to  bring  up  technical  and  other  objections  to  avoid  the  payment. 
*  "*  *  ^e  have  said  that  these  Indian  disturbances  were  not  wars,  that  Indians  were 
not  to  be  regarded  as  belligerents.  They  are  wards  of  the  nation.  The  Government  of 
the  United  States  has  assumed  to  take  care  of  them  and  to  protect  the  frontier  against 
them  by  placing  them  on  reservations  and  under  the  control  of  the  militarv;  and 
they  have  thus  invited  people  to  go  on  the  frontier,  risk  their  lives,  and  risk  their 
property. 

The  Gfovernment  has  invited  them  to  do  that  and  has  placed  agents  over  the  Indians  ; 
but  for  all  that  they  break  out  and  they  carry  with  them  the  torch  ;  they  burn,  pillage, 
rob,  destroy,  murder,  and  carry  into  captivity ;  and  when  these  unfortunate  people  come 
to  Congress  and  ask  for  relief,  because  every  man  has  not  been  prepared  to  bring  forward 
his  claim  in  the  mode  and  manner  which  is  required  all  others  who  have  done  so  are  to 
'be  relegated  to  some  commission  hereafter  to  be  appointed  to  regulate  these  things.  Sir, 
that  is  not  just.  Let  "every  tub  stand  upon  its  own  bottom."  If  a  man  has  an  honest 
claim  let  it  be  brought  forward,  and  if  the  claims  amount  to  $8,000,000,  as  the  Senator  from 
Wisconsin  says,  if  they  are  lust  claims  for  depredations  committed  by  these  wards  of 
the  nation  upon  the  defenseless  frontier  people  in  the  destruction  and  robbery  of  their 
property,  this  Government,  as  an  upright  and  honorable  and  honest  gentlemen  would  do, 
ought  to  pay  the  last  dollar  of  it  if  the  Indians  have  not  enough  money  of  their  own 
to  pay  that  debt.  I  assume  in  the  broadest  form  that  position  that  it  would  be  just  and 
Tight  and  fair  to  do  it. 

Mr.  Cockrell  said : 

It  is  a  matter  of  absolute  necessity  that  we  shall  sift  these  claims,  that  we  shall  ascer- 
tain those  that  are  properly  chargeable  against  the  nations  and  tribes  that  have  annui- 
ties and  with  whom  we  have  treaty  stipulations  and  whose  money  we  have,  so  that  we 
can  pay  the  claims.  Now,  I  am  for  making  these  Indians  pay  every  solitary  dollar  due  for 
the  actual  depredations  committed  by  them,  whenever  they  have  any  money  or  whenever 
they  have  any  lands  out  of  which  they  can  be  paid.  I  want  to  hold  them  responsible  to 
tliefullest  extent  of  the  law;  but  I  only  want  to  pay  what  is  actually  due,  the  real  value 
of  the  property  destroyed  or  the  real  injury  done  to  it,  and  not  mere  imaginative  dam- 
ages that  may  have  resulted,  and  w^hich  should  never  be  allowed  in  any  Court  of  justice. 
Therefore  we  put  in  the  amendment,  under  the  head  of  "  Indian  depredation  claims,"  at 
page  47,  requiring  a  thorough  investigation  of  this  whole  matter.  We  appropriate 
1 10,000  for  it.  The  Secretary  can  take  this  money  and  he  can  have  a  thorough  investiga- 
tion made;  he  can  report  to  us  all  the  facts;  he  "^can  show  us  the  evidence  upon  which 
these  claims  are  allowed,  and  the  treaties  and  the  funds.  Then  we  can  go  to  work  and 
settle  the  cases  intelligently  and  honestly  and  fairly,  but  we  can  not  do  it  until  we  have 
that  information,  and  it  is  Idle  to  undertake  to  do  it.  We  are  simply  making  fish  of  one 
and  flesh  of  another.  We  are  making  a  favorite  of  one,  and  we  are  doing  great  injustice 
and  wrong  to  hundreds  of  others. 

If  it  was  not  the  intention  of  Congress  that  payment  of  these  claims 
should  be  ultimately  made  by  the  United  States  the  appropriation  of 
$10,000  at  the  last  session  of  Congress  for  the  purpose  of  having  such 
claims  investigated  and  reported  upon  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
was  a  waste  of  money  and  useless  legislation.  I  have  a  right,  therefore,  to 
assume  that  the  provision  of  the  Act  in  question  for  the  examination  of 
such  claims  and  requiring  a  report  of  those  approved  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  to  be  transmitted  to  Congress,  was  for  the  purpose  of  providing 
a  basis  for  an  appropriation  by  Congress  at  a  subsequent  session  for  pay- 
ment thereof.  Congress  should  treat  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  as  conclusive  so  far  as  the  claims  that  are  approved  are  concerned, 
and  appropriate  money  for  their  payment.  The  bill  presented  by  me  to 
authorize  suit  in  the  Court  of  Claims  would  then  be  applicable  to  claims 
which  have  been  heretofore  disallowed  by  the  Department,  to  claims 
which  have  been  heretofore  filed  but  have  not  been  examined  and  reported, 
and  to  those  which  may  hereafter  be  filed. 

I  think  the  Government  is  morally  bound  to  pay  the  claims  which  have 
been  proven  under  the  laws  and  the  rules  and  regulations  prescribed  by 
the  Interior  Department,  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and 
reported  to  Congress.  I  do  not  care,  however,  so  much  for  the  manner  in 
which  the  object  I  have  in  view,  which  is,  the  payment  of  these  claims,  is 
accomplished  as  I  do  that  some  action  shall  be  taken  by  Congress  now, 


451 

without  further  delay,  which  will  accomplish  it.  The  inaction  and  indif- 
ference of  Congress  in  this  matter  is  a  disgrace  to  the  Government  and  an 
injustice  to  its  citizens  which  should.be  no  longer  permitted. 

It  is  because  I  suppose  the  bill  offered  by  me  to  refer  claims  of  this 
character  hereafter  to  the  Court  of  Claims  will  not  be  subject  to  some  of 
the  objections  which  have  been  heretofore  urged  against  the  payment  of 
these  claims,  and  may  therefore  find  favor  with  the  majority  of  both 
Houses  of  Congress,  that  I  have  offered  it. 

By  reference  to  the  first  section  of  the  bill  it  will  be  seen  that  it  does  not 
create  a  new  class  of  claims  against" the  United  States.  It  provides  a  more 
satisfactory  method  for  the  examination  and  determination  of  a  class  of 
claims  already  recognized.  As  I  have  shown,  claims  for  Indian  depreda- 
tions are  now  considered  in  the  Interior  Department  upon  ex  parte  affidavits, 
filed  by  the  claimants,  and  upon  such  further  information  as  the  agents  of 
the  Department  are  able  to  gather.  When  examined  in  the  Department 
they  are  reported  to  Congress,  which,  instead  of  treating  the  approval  of  the 
claims  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  as  conclusive,  and  making  an  appro- 
priation to  pay  them,  either  takes  no  action  or  delays  final  action,  and  post- 
pones thie  day  of  settlement  and  payment  by  expedients  like  that  adopted 
at  the  last  session,  when  provision  for  the  payment  of  certain  claims  was 
stricken  out  of  the  Indian  appropriation  bill  by  the  Senate,  and  an  appro- 
priation of  $10,000  made  for  examination  and  report  upon  such  claims  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  The  truth  is  that  neither  the  Department  of 
the  Interior  nor  Congress  is  so  situated  as  properly  to  examine  claims  of 
this  character. 

No  greater  objection  has  ever  been  urged  to  these  claims  than  that  the 
ex  parte  examination  which  they  have  hitherto  undergone  necessarily  fails 
to  separate  the  good  from  the  bad,  and  indeed  invites  fraud.  The  provis- 
ions of  the  present  bill  answer  any  such  objection. 

In  the  Court  of  Claims  the  Government  is  represented  by  the  Attorney- 
General  through  his  assistants.  All  the  machinery  of  the  Department  of 
Justice  is  at  the  disposal  of  the  Government  in  securing  evidence.  No  tes- 
timony can  be  taken  ex  parte,  but  under  the  rules  governing  the  Court  the 
Government  is  present  by  its  counsel  at  the  examination  of  all  witnesses 
and  can  call  witnesses  in  defense.  The  methods  of  procedure  in  that  Court 
are  simple,  and  there  is  no  better  way  of  securing  an  impartial  and  thor- 
ough examination  and  just  decision  of  the  claims  for  Indian  depredations 
than  by  submitting  them  to  it.  The  Court  is  able,  as  I  will  presently  show, 
to  dispose  of  a  much  larger  amount  of  business  than  is  now  before  it.  Prob- 
ably the  passage  of  this  bill  would  necessitate  the  appointment  of  additional 
counsel  to  represent  the  Government  in  cases  brought  under  it,  as  the  force 
of  attorneys  for  the  Government  has  not  heretofore  been  large  enough. 
With  a  slight  addition  in  this  respect,  cases  arising  under  this  bill  could  be 
promptly  considered  and  decided. 

Propositions  to  refer  claims  of  this  class  to  commissioners  are  open  to  objec- 
tions. It  would  be  difficult  to  obtain  commissioners  of  sufficient  learning 
and  experience  who  would  accept  temporary  official  positions  and  who 
would  dispose  of  interests  so  important  in  a  manner  acceptable  to  the  claim- 
ants and  the  Government.  Commissioners  would  be  obliged  also  to  act  as 
counsel  for  the  United  States  as  well  as  judges.  It  need  not  be  said  that 
these  two  positions  are  incompatible  and  that  a  judge  so  situated  is  hardly 
able  to  render  an  impartial  decision.  If  this  work  were  done  by  commis- 
sioners Congress  would  be  overwhelmed  by  petitions  of  unsuccessful  claim- 
ants for  relief.     This  has  been  the  past  experience  with  commissioners  and 


452 

special  tribunals.  Suitors  against  the  Government  should  have  the  same 
right  to  trial  in  a  judicial  tribunal  as  other  suitors. 

The  sixth  and  seventh  sections  of  the  bill  are  in  harmony  with  the  policy 
of  the  Government  as  expressed  by  the  Act  of  1834.  It  is  provided  that 
judgments  shall  be  paid  out  of  Indian  annuities,  if  any  exist.  An  exam- 
ination of  the  Indian  treaties  shows  that  a  large  proportion  of  all  the  treaties 
ever  made  with  the  Indian  tribes  contain  provisions  that  claims  for  depre- 
dations shall  be  paid  out  of  the  annuities  due  such  tribes.  The  course  of 
legislation  shows  that  where  annuities  have  existed  this  has  been  the  uni- 
form rule  from  1796  to  the  present  time.  In  the  absence  of  treaties  espe- 
cially designating  this  course  the  obligation  of  the  Indian  tribe  is  equally 
strong.  A  tribe  committing  depredations  cannot  expect  to  receive  trust 
funds  from  the  Government  while  claims  of  its  citizens  arising  out  of  their 
own  misconduct  are  unpaid.  The  rights  of  the  Indians  are  sacred,  but  no- 
more  sacred  than  the  rights  of  innocent  white  citizens.  The  line  must  be 
drawn  between  justice  and  sentiment.  The  white  man  must  be  given  jus- 
tice as  well  as  the  Indian. 

These  principles  are  carried  to  their  logical  and  proper  extent  by  this  bill 
by  providing  that,  if  there  are  no  annuities  and  funds  become  due  to  the 
Indians  from  the  sale  of  their  lands,  then  they  must  pay  out  of  such  funds 
for  their  depredations,  or  out  of  any  appropriations  made  for  their  benefit 
other  than  for  their  subsistence,  support,  and  education.  Should  there  be 
no  funds  in  the  hands  of  the  Government  due  the  Indians,  it  is  provided  by 
the  bill  that  the  judgment  of  the  Court  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  Treasury. 
This  adopts  the  provisions  upon  this  subject  of  the  Act  of  1834,  which  was 
only  a  reenactment  of  the  provisions  of  the  Acts  of  1796,  1799,  and  1802. 
The  provision  is  only  a  discharge  by  the  Government  of  its  just  obligations 
arising  out  of  peculiar  relations  of  the  Government,  the  citizen,  and  the 
Indians. 

When  the  Act  of  1870  was  passed  directing  that  no  claim  should  be  paid 
out  of  annuities  without  the  special  authority  of  Congress,  there  were  many 
annuities  due  to  Indian  tribes  which  have  since  been  fully  paid. 

A  reference  to  House  Executive  Document  5,  Forty-first  Congress,  second 
session,  page  182,  shows  that  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1870, 
$4,167,486  36  was  appropriated  for  fulfilling  treaties  with  various  Indian 
tribes.  All  this  sum  was,  under  the  laws  and  treaties,  subject  to  the  pay- 
ment of  claims  for  depredations  committed  by  the  Indians  to  whom  annu- 
ities were  due.  The  Act  of  1834  pledged  the  Government  to  such  payments. 
But  since  then  very  few  claims  have  been  paid,  while  the  annuities  have 
been  gradually  exhausted  with  the  lapse  of  years,  until  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  reports  in  1884  that  the  sum  of  $1,420,150  only  is  necessary  to 
carry  out  treaty  stipulations  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1886. 

The  guarantor  trustee  has  paid  out  the  funds  without  regard  to  its  own 
obligations  as  guarantor,  and  must  answer  from  its  own  estate. 

Congress  has  at  almost  every  session  passed  some  bill  for  the  payment 
of  Indian  depredation  claims,  and  at  every  session  claims  as  meritorious  as 
those  passed  are  presented  and  ignored.  The  passage  of  this  bill  would  at 
once  relieve  Congress  from  further  consideration  of  this  class  of  claims.  It 
would  remove  the  objection  made  to  their  payment  that  they  are  exagger- 
ated and  have  not  been  established  with  sufficient  certainty  to  justify 
appropriations,  and  provide  the  most  satisfactory  way  of  ascertaining  the 
amount  of  loss  sustained  by  each  claimant.  While  it  would  entail  some 
expense  upon  the  claimants,  they  would,  I  believe,  gladly  accept  its  provi- 
sions and  be  satisfied  with  the  final  adjustment  of  their  claims  under  it. 


453 

The  present  system  of  auditing  claims  of  the  character  under  consider- 
ation is  a  delusion;  it  has  outlived  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  instituted; 
appropriations  no  longer  follow  as  a  matter  of  course,  either  for  the  payment 
of  these  claims,  as  audited,  out  of  the  Treasury,  or  from  annuities  due  the 
Indians  chargeable  with  the  depredations. 

I  have  considered  the  question  of  the  ability  of  the  Court  of  Claims  to 
dispose  of  the  additional  business  which  would  be  imposed  upon  it  by  this 
bill  should  it  become  a  law,  and  find  that  it  will  be  able  without  any  addi- 
tional clerical  or  other  force  to  dispose  of  such  business.  The  expense  of 
examining  these  claims  under  this  bill  would  be  no  greater  than  the  expense 
now  caused  by  the  examination  of  them  by  the  Interior  Department.  In 
answer  to  a  letter  addressed  by  me  to  Hon.  William  A.  Richardson,  Chief 
Justice  of  the  Court  of  Claims,  I  received  the  following: 

Court  of  Claims  Chambers,  ) 

Washington,  February  23,  1886.  j 

My  Dear  Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  nine- 
teenth instant,  with  a  copy  of  Senate  bill  No.  1407,  "in  relation  to  Indian  depredations." 

You  say  that  you  "have  been  informed  that  the  impression  is  prevalent,  to  some  extent, 
that  the  Court  of  Claims  would  be  unable  to  dispose  of  any  considerable  addition  to  the 
husiness  now  before  it,"  and  you  ask  me  to  inform  you  whether  it  would  be  possible  for 
the  Court  to  dispose  promptly  of  cases  which  might  arise  under  this  bill  should  it  become 
a  law,  and  whether  any  changes  in  existing  law  would  be  necessary  to  enable  the  Court 
to  determine  the  causes  which  might  go  before  it,  should  the  bill  be  passed  by  Congress. 

The  impression  to  which  you  refer  is  an  erroneous  one.  Although  the  business  of  the 
Court  has  been  largely  increased  of  late,  no  difficulty  has  been  or  is  likely  to  be  found  in 
disposing  of  it  as  fast  as  the  parties  are  ready  for  trial. 

Of  course  the  judges  are  required  to  work  somewhat  harder,  but  of  that  they  do  not 
complain.  They  always  hold  themselves  in  readiness  cheerfully  and  promptly  to  do 
whatever  business  Congress  sees  lit  to  put  upon  them. 

When  the  Bowman  bill,  which  became  the  "Act  to  afford  assistance  and  relief  to  Con- 
gress and  the  Executive  Departments  in  the  investigation  of  claims  and  demands  against 
the  Government"  (22  Statutes  at  Large,  485),  was  before  a  committee  of  Congress,  the 
judges  made  reply  to  a  similar  request  as  follows: 

"  The  business  of  the  Court  has  frequently  been  increased  by  special  matters  of  juris- 
diction referred  to  it  by  Congress,  such  as  the  abandoned  and  captured  property  cases, 
under  the  Act  of  March  12,  1863;  cases  against  the  District  of  Columbia,  under  the  Act 
of  June  16,  1880;  and  numerous  cases  and  classes  of  cases  referred  by  private  Acts.  It  is 
found  that  such  cases  bring  in  ijew  litigants  and  new  counsel,  who  prepare  and  submit 
their  cases  while  others  are  in  preparation  and  do  not  obstruct  the  general  business. 
Litigants  are  always  promptly  heard  whenever  their  cases  are  ready  for  submission,  and 
the  Court  promptly  decides  them,  and  the  business  has  never  been  in  arrears;  so  that  the 
extent  of  business  which  the  Court  may  transact  can  hardly  be  estimated." 

Further  experience  with  the  business  of  that  Act  before  the  Court,  has  confirmed  the 
views  there  expressed. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  the  Court,  with  no  additional  assistance,  would  be  able  to  do 
promptly  all  the  business  that  would  come  to  it,  if  the  present  bill  becomes  a  law. 

I  send  herewith  a  copy  of  the  History,  Jurisdiction,  and  Practice  of  the  Court  of  Claims, 
from  which  you  will  get  a  full  account  of  the  business  of  the  Court. 
1  am,  very  truly,  yours,  etc., 

WILLIAM  A.  RICHARDSON, 
Chief  Justice. 

Hon.  J.  N.  Dolph,  Senator,  etc. 

I  also  addressed  a  letter  to  the  honorable  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs, 
to  ascertain  the  number  of  depredation  claims  and  their  aggregate  amount, 
and  received  the  following  reply: 

Department  of  the  Interior,  Office  of  Indian  Affairs,  ) 
Washington,  D.  C,  March  3,  1886.         j 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  interrogatories  relative  to  number,  amount,  etc.,  of  Indian  depre- 
dation claims  pending  in  this  office,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  with  the  forces 
employed  and  the  amount  of  other  duties  devolving  upon  them,  it  has  been  impossible 
to  collect  the  full  and  exact  data  you  desire;  such  facts,  however,  as  the  office  has  been 
able  to  collect,  and  which  are  believed  to  be  approximately  correct,  are  given. 

There  are  about  forty-five  hundred  claims  on  file  on  account  of  Indian  depredations, 
dating  from  1850  to  the  present  time,  and  they  aggregate  in  amount  $13,000,000.    Prior  to 


454 

the  Act  of  July  15,  1870  (see  Revised  Statutes,  Section  2098),  claims  against  Indians  for 
depredations  were  paid  by  United  States  Indian  agents.    As  to  what  amount  was  thus 

Eaid  the  office  has  not  been  able  to  ascertain.  By  an  examination  of  the  Statutes  at 
arge,  beginning  with  the  Act  of  March  3,  1819  (3  Statutes,  page  517),  and  coming  down 
to  the  Act  of  March  3,  1885  (23  Statutes,  498),  it  will  be  seen  tJiiit  Congress  has  appropri- 
ated, by  special  Acts  in  payment  of  claims,  about  the  sum  of  $1,654,530. 

As  to  what  amount  of  claims  has  been  allowed  by  and  what  amount  has  been  rejected 
by  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  or  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  heretofore,  can 
not  be  ascertained  within  the  time  desired  by  you,  if  in  fact  it  could  be  ascertained  at  all 
in  a  satisfactory  manner,  as  in  many  instances  the  same  claim  has  been  disallowed  by 
one  Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  allowed  by  his  successor. 
Very  respectfully, 

J.  D.  C.  ATKINS,  Commissioner. 
Hon.  J.  N.  Dolph,  United  States  Senate. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  number  of  these  claims  which  have  been  here- 
tofore filed  is  about  forty-five  hundred,  and  the  total  amount  claimed  about 
$13,000,000.  Experience  justifies  the  expectation  that  when  these  claims 
are  required  to  undergo  investigation  in  a  Court,  and  to  be  presented  in 
accordance  with  the  rule  of  pleading  and  established  by  evidence  taken  in 
such  manner  as  to  allow  the  cross-examination  of  witnesses,  many  of  them 
will  never  be  presented;  and  of  those  which  are  presented,  when  the  claims 
without  m'erit  are  winnowed  out  of  the  whole,  their  number  and  amount 
will  be  greatly  reduced.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  total  amount  of  claims 
which  would  be  allowed  under  this  bill,  should  the  whole  thirteen  millions 
be  presented,  would  exceed  $5,000,000.  To  show  the  probability  of  a  large 
reduction  in  the  amount  of  these  claims,  if  submitted  to  the  Court  of 
Claims  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  I  submit  the  following  statement: 

CLAIMS   PEESENTED,   ALLOWED,   AND   DISALLOWED   IN  VARIOUS  CLAIMS  TRIBUNALS,  SHOWING  THE 
PROPORTIONS   OF   CLAIMS  TO   ALLOWANCES. 

I. 

Southern  Claims  Commission,  under  Act  of  March  3, 1871  (16  Stat.  L.,  524): 

Amount  claimed... $00,258,150  44 

Amount  allowed 4,630,920  6» 

Amount  rejected 55,621,229  75 

(See  House  Miscellaneous  Document  No.  30,  P"'orty-sixth  Congress,  second  session.) 

II. 

Court  of  Claims  in  cases  decided  from  December  term,  1867,  to  December  term,  1880: 

Amount  claimed.... $80,315,529  20 

Amount  allowed 19,770,540  98 

Amount  rejected 60,544,988  22 

(See  seventeenth  volume  Court  of  Claims  Reports,  page  11.) 

III. 

Claims  Commission  under  convention  with  Great  Britain  of  February,  1853  (10  Stat.  L., 
988): 

Amount  claimed,  "  millions." 

Amount  allowed,  about $600,000  00 

(See  message  of  the  President  communicating  the  proceedings,  printed  by  the  Senate 
Printer,  1858,  page  4.) 

IV. 

Claims  Commission  under  convention  with  Mexico  of  July  4,  1868  (15  Stat.  L.,  679): 

Amount  of  claims  against  the  United  States $86,661,981  15 

Amount  allowed  in  claims  against  the  United  States 150,498  41 

Amount  rejected  in  claims  against  the  United  States... 86,511,392  74 

Amount  of  claims  against  Mexico 470,126,613  40 

Amount  allowed  in  claims  against  Mexico 4,125,622  20 

Amount  rejected  in  claims  against  Mexico 466,000,991  20 

(See  Senate  Executive  Document  No.  31,  Forty-fourth  Congress,  second  session.) 


455 

V. 

Claims  Commission  under  convention  with  France  of  January  15, 1880  (21  Stat,  L.,  673) : 

Amount  of  claims  against  the  United  States -. 117,368,151  27 

Amount  allowed  in  claims  against  the  United  States 625,566  35 

Amount  rejected  in  claims  against  the  United  States 16,742,584  92 

Amount  of  claims  against  France. -- 2,427,544  91 

Amount  allowed  in  claims  against  France,  13,659  francs  14  cent,  or  about..  2,732  00 

Amount  rejected  in  claims  against  France 2,424,812  91 

(See  House  Executive  Document  No.  235,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  session,  pages 
191,  193.) 

VI. 

Claims  under  the  Act  of  July  4,  1864,  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Quartermaster-General : 

Amount  claimed $41,107,266  48 

Amount  reported  to  the  Third  Auditor  under  the  second  section  of  said  Act 

with  recommendation  for  settlement  up  to  March  6,  1886 5,750,119  71 

Amount  rejected 29,083,554  16 

Amount  of  claims  pending  at  said  date 6,273,592  61 

VII. 

Claims  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Commissary-General  up  to  March  10, 1886: 

Amount  claimed $4,944,111  14 

Amount  recommended  to  the  Third  Auditor  of  the  Treasury  for  settlement 

under  said  Act  to  said  date.. 429,533  47 

Amount  rejected _. 4,509,704  17, 

Amount  of  claims  now  pending 4,873  50 

The  bill  under  consideration  is  designed  to  provide  a  tribunal,  open  to 
the  citizens  of  all  the  States  and  Territories,  authorized  to  hear  and  deter- 
mine their  claims  according  to  the  law  and  the  facts.  It  is  a  measure 
demanded  by  every  principle  of  justice  and  good  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
Government. 

The  people  of  Oregon,  Washington,  and  Idaho,  in  my  judgment,  have 
an  exceptional  claim  upon  the  Government  for  indemnification  for  losses 
occasioned  by  Indian  depredations,  growing  out  of  the  causes  which  led 
to  the  settlement  and  occupation  of  the  Oregon  Territory  by  American 
citizens,  the  inducements  held  out  by  the  Government  to  settlers  in  that 
Territory,  and  the  causes  which  led  to  Indian  hostilities  there. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  title  to  the  territory  which  comprised  what  is 
now  Oregon,  Washington,  and  Idaho,  lying  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains, 
and  north  of  latitude  42°  north,  was  for  a  long  time  in  dispute.  It  was 
claimed  at  different  times  by  Russia,  Spain,  Great  Britain,  and  the  United 
States.  Russia's  claim  rested  on  occupation  by  fur  traders,  and  its  south- 
ern boundary  was  undefined.  She  had  established  a  fur  trading  post  in 
Northern  California  at  an  early  day. 

By  a  treaty  ratified  by  the  United  States  in  1825,  the  line  between  the 
territory  claimed  by  the  United  States  and  that  claimed  by  Russia  was 
fixed  at  54°  40'  north  latitude.  Great  Britain,  claiming  the  territory  south 
of  that  line,  made  haste  to  negotiate  a  similar  treaty,  defining  54°  40'  north 
latitude  as  her  northern  boundary. 

The  claim  of  Spain  to  this  country  rested  upon  alleged  discovery  backed 
by  occupation.  Spain  transferred  her  interests  to  France,  and  in  1803 
Napoleon  sold  Louisiana  to  the  United  States,  and  by  the  Florida  purchase 
latitude  42°  north  was  fixed  as  the  boundary  between  Spain  and  the  United' 
States  on  the  Pacific  coast,  and  thereafter  the  controversy  concerning  the 
title  to  the  territory  was  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 
The  claim  of  Great  Britain  to  the  country  by  discovery  was  indefensible, 
but  as  early  as  1793  English  fur  traders,  in  private  employ,  pushed  into 


456 

the  Oregon  country  and  established  trading  posts  there,  but  made  no 
attempts  at  permanent  settlement  south  of  49°  north  latitude. 

The  claim  of  the  United  States  rested  upon  the  doubtful  claim  acquired 
from  Spain,  the  voyage  of  Capt.  Robt.  Gray,  of  Boston,  who  in  1792  entered 
and  explored  to  some  distance  from  its  mouth  the  River  Saint  Roque,  the 
name  of  which  he  changed  to  Columbia,  the  name  of  his  ship,  and  the 
exploration  of  Lewis  and  Clarke,  who,  under  orders  from  President  Jeffer- 
son, crossed  the  continent,  floated  down  the  Columbia,  wintered  at  Young's 
River,  near  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia,  and  explored  much  of  the  Oregon 
country. 

The  treaty  with  Russia  fixing,  as  against  the  Russian  claim  to  the 
territory,  latitude  54°  40'  north  as  the  northern  boundary  of  the  possessions 
of  the  United  States,  created  in  the  United  States  a  belief  that  was  our 
true  boundary  as  against  Great  Britain,  and  the  Oregon  boundary  was  for 
many  years  an  absorbing  question  in  the  politics  of  the  country.  It  formed 
the  subject  of  political  platforms  and  political  campaigns;  it  threatened 
to  involve  us  in  a  war  with  Great  Britain;  the  Monroe  doctrine  was  invoked 
against  allowing  Great  Britain's  claim  to  any  part  of  the  Pacific  Coast.  It 
became  apparent  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  and  to  the  Government 
that  the  question  of  title  would  be  eventually  determined  by  actual  occu- 
^pation.  By  the  Convention  of  August  6,  1827,  the  joint  occupation  of  the 
Oregon  country  by  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  was  continued 
indefinitely,  with  a  provision  that  either  party  might  annul  and  abrogate 
it  upon  giving  twelve  months'  notice  to  the  other,  and  from  that  time  forward 
until  the  Northwestern  boundary  was  finally  settled  by  the  treaty  of  1846, 
occupation  became  an  important  factor  in  determining  the  question  of  title. 
The  condition  of  the  western  half  of  North  America  at  the  time  Captain 
Gray  discovered  and  explored  the  Columbia  River  is  thus  graphically 
described  in  an  article  published  in  the  Daily  Morning  Oregonian  of  Port- 
land, January  1,  1886: 

With  the  anniversary  of  another  century,  in  the  year  1792,  exactly  three  hundred  years 
after  Columbus  discovered  the  New  Worldj  and  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  first 
Spanish  navigator  sailed  up  the  west  shore  of  Oregon,  an  American  shipmaster  discovered 
the  great  river  of  the  west. 

Up  to  that  time  the  western  half  of  North  America  was  so  unknown  that  from  the  Gulf 
of  California  to  the  icy  pole  there  was  scarce  a  trace  of  civilization.  That  little  was  where 
Jesuit  missions  to  the  far  south  were  striving  to  bring  up  from  untold  ages  of  vice  and 
degradation  the  miserable  native  hordes  that  peopled  the  choicest  regions  of  the  West. 
These  efforts  were  only  then  commenced.  If  one  could  have  stood  on  the  great  divide 
from  whence  the  melting  snows  turn  westward,  the  view  would  have  been  unbroken  by 
one  single  touch  of  enterprise,  with  not  a  trace  of  civilization  to  mar  the  perfection  of  its 
savagery.  The  Indian  with  bow  and  arrow  followed  the  chase,  or  with  spear  and  net 
sought  a  food  supply  from  the  waters.  And  somewhere,  on  that  vast  expanse  of  wilder- 
ness, hostile  bands  were  always  on  the  warpath.  The  warwhoop  and  the  savage  yell 
waked  many  a  scene  of  night,  and  flames  of  torture  blazed  to  mark  each  victory.  The 
Indian  of  this  far  West  may  have  heard  some  rumor  of  the  white  man's  coming,  but  on 
all  the  hills  and  plains  and  through  all  the  mountain  wastes,  from  Athabasca's  snows  to 
California's  perennial  summer  times,  the  native  tribes  were,  as  their  fathers  had  been 
before  them,  barbarian  and  savage  beyond  recall. 

How  great  the  change  that  time  has  wrought !  Immigration  has  swept 
across  the  continent;  civilization  has  taken  the  place  of  barbarism,  the  arts 
of  peace  of  perpetual  warfare;  the  then  wilderness  has  become  the  home 
of  millions  of  intelligent,  law  abiding,  and  liberty  loving,  industrious,  and 
prosperous  citizens,  and  the  native  hordes  which  then  roamed  over  that 
vast  territory  are  confined  upon  reservations  and  are  kept  under  Govern- 
ment control.  This  change  has  not  taken  place,  and  in  the  nature  of 
things  could  not  take  place,  entirely  peacefully.  The  conflict  between 
civilization  and  savage  life  is  irrepressible.     It  needs  no  prophet  to  foretell 


457 

that  one  or  the  other  must  prevail.  Civilization  or  extermination  is  the 
fate  of  the  remnant  of  the  Indians. 

The  occupation  of  the  territory  was  favored  by  the  Government.  As  we- 
have  seen,  peaceful  occupation  by  American  citizens  was  provided  for  in 
the  treaty  with  Great  Britain;  Government  expeditions  were  sent  to  explore 
the  country;  Government  protection  was  afforded  to  immigrants  crossing 
the  plains;  the  patriotism  of  the  people  was  appealed  to,  and  to  induce 
immigration  to  aid  the  settlement  of  the  country  Congress  passed  an 
Act,  approved  September  27,  1850,  commonly  known  as  the  donation  law, 
granting  to  every  settler  upon  the  public  lands  who  was  such  prior  to  Sep- 
tember 1,  1850,  a  donation  of  the  quantity  of  a  half  section,  or  three  hun- 
dred and  twenty  acres  of  land,  if  a  single  man,  and  if  married,  the  quantity 
of  an  entire  section,  or  six  hundred  and  forty  acres,  one  half  to  the  hus- 
band and  the  other  half  to  the  wife  in  her  own  right,  and  to  such  as  should 
become  settlers  between  September  1,  1850,  and  December  1,  1855,  the 
quantity  of  a  quarter  section  to  a  single  man,  and,  if  married,  a  half  sec- 
tion, one  half  to  the  husband  and  the  other  half  to  the  wife  in  her  own 
right. 

Prior  to  1830  several  unsuccessful  attempts  were  made  by  American  fur 
companies  to  establish  and  maintain  posts  in  the  Territory,  but  they  failed 
on  account  of  the  opposition  and  rivalry  of  established  British  companies. 
Immigration  began  in  1832,  and  after  1838  each  year  there  were  large  addi- 
tions to  the  permanent  settlements  of  the  country  by  companies  of  enter- 
prising persons,  who  had  braved  the  perils  and  endured  the  hardships  of 
the  long  and  tedious  journey  across  the  continent  to  establish  homes  for 
themselves  and  hold  the  country  for  the  United  States. 

The  increasing  American  immigration  added  to  the  perils  of  joint  occu- 
pation, and  it  is  firmly  believed  by  many  that  some  of  the  Indian  massacres 
and  depredations  were  incited  by  those  unfriendly  to  American  occupation 
of  the  Territory.  While  it  was  the  policy  of  Congress  to  induce  the  settle- 
ment of  Oregon  by  the  whites,  and  to  continue  the  joint  occupation  until 
the  United  States  should  be  able,  with  the  aid  of  the  American  population 
of  the  Territory,  to  assert  and  maintain  an  exclusive  right  to  it,  the  settlers 
were  from  the  first  left  without  adequate  protection  by  the  Government. 
The  pioneer  population  of  the  region  suffered  greatly  at  first  from  the  ina- 
bility of  the  Government  to  afford  them  protection,  and  afterward  from  its 
indifference  and  inaction.  From  the  commencement  of  American  immi- 
gration for  the  purpose  of  permanent  occupation,  and  from  the  time  it 
became  apparent  that  Great  Britain  could  not  compete  with  the  United 
States  in  the  settlement  of  the  country,  Indian  massacres  of  emigrants 
commenced.  In  1834,  on  the  Umpqua  River,  a  party  of  thirty  white  per- 
sons were  treacherously  and  brutally  murdered.  This  was  followed  by  the 
massacre  of  Dr.  Whitman  and  his  twenty-seven  companions,  near  Walla 
Walla,  by  the  Cayuse  and  Walla  Wallas  in  1847.  These  outbreaks  were 
followed  by  murders  of  immigrants  by  bands  of  Modocs  in  1852,  by  the 
vSouthern  Oregon  Indian  war  in  1853,  the  Rogue  River  and  Jacksonville 
wars  in  1855  and  1856,  raids  of  marauding  bands  of  Snakes  in  Eastern 
Oregon  in  1858-59,  the  marauding  massacres,  murders,  and  thefts  by  the 
Snakes  in  Eastern  Oregon  and  Washington  in  1865-70,  the  Modoc  outbreak 
in  1872-73,  and  the  Nez  Perce  war  of  1878. 

In  1858  a  committee  was  appointed  by  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the 
Territory  of  Oregon  and  directed  to  examine  and  report  in  regard  to  depre- 
dations upon  immigrants  in  1854,  the  number  and  dates,  places,  and  names 
of  persons  killed  by  Oregon  Indians  in  time  of  peace,  and  those  killed  in 
time  of  war  by  Indians  supposed  to  be  friendly.     The  committee  made  a 


458       ' 

report  February  3,  1858,  giving  the  names  and  dates  of  persons  killed  and 
names  of  the  tribes  doing  the  killing.  The  following  is  taken  from  the 
concluding  portion  of  the  report: 

It  will  be  seen  by  the  foregoing  list  that  prior  to  1851  upward  of  fifty  citizens  were  mur- 
dered by  Oregon  Indians.  Since  1851  upward  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  citizens  have  been 
murdered  by  the  Indians  of  Southern  Oregon  and  their  immediate  allies,  and  about  fifty 
by  the  Indians  of  Northern  Oregon  and  their  allies.  Many  more  names  could  be  obtained 
from  papers  and  living  witnesses,  but  your  committee  have  not  time  to  investigate  any 
further. 

Recapitulation:  Killed  in  1834,  30;  in  1835,  4;  in  1846, 1;  in  1847,  16;  in  1850,  8;  in  1851, 
12;  in  1852,  50;  in  1853, 11;  in  1854,  29;  in  1855,  51;  in  1856,  45;  in  1857,  5.    Total,  262. 

Isolated  from  civilization,  neglected  by  the  General  Government,  sur- 
rounded by  savage  foes,  the  pioneers  of  Oregon  demonstrated  to  a  remarka- 
ble degree  the  self-reliance,  the  undaunted  courage,  endurance,  and  capacity 
for  self-government  of  the  American  people.  It  is  for  these  brave  men  who 
penetrated  the  wilderness,  took  possession  of  the  Oregon  Territory  and 
planted  civilization  there;  who  defended  their  hearthstones  against  savage 
foes  incited  by  the  emissaries  of  foreign  powers;  who  laid  the  foundation 
of  prosperous  States  and  Territories  that  are,  and  the  powerful  and  wealthy 
States  that  are  to  be,  and  for  the  widows  and  orphans  of  those  who  lost 
their  lives  by  the  neglect  of  the  Government,  that  I  plead  to-day.  I  demand 
for  them  the  same  treatment  accorded  to  all  the  citizens  of  the  Republic 
for  a  period  of  over  sixty  years  from  the  organization  of  the  Government. 
The  time  will  come  when  this  demand  will  be  heeded  and  provision  will 
be  made  for  determining  the  amounts  of  their  losses  by  Indian  depreda- 
tions, and  for  the  payment  of  their  claims.  How  much  better  it  would  he 
to  make  such  provision  now,  while  the  evidence  can  be  found  to  sift  the 
false  from  the  true,  and  while  the  money  will  be  available  to  relieve  the 
necessities  of  the  original  claimants. 

If  the  committee  favors  the  payment  of  these  claims,  and  the  bill  offered 
by  me  does  not  provide  the  best  means  for  ascertaining  the  amounts  thereof, 
let  them  devise  a  better  plan  and  speedily  present  it  to  the  Senate.  If  it 
is  proposed  to  repudiate  all  liability  on  the  part  of  the  Government  for 
damages  for  such  losses,  I  hope,  nevertheless,  a  report  will  speedily  be  made 
that  the  opinion  of  the  Senate  may  be  taken  on  the  question.  The  present 
condition  of  these  claims  is  very  unsatisfactory.  An  occasional  bill  for 
relief  is  passed;  other  claimants  do  not  understand  why  the  Government 
should  make  a  distinction  between  its  citizens.  They  press  their  claims 
upon  members  of  Congress  at  each  session;  bills  are  introduced  for  their 
relief;  Congress  takes  no  action;  and  the  same  thing  is  repeated  at  the 
next  session.  If  an  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  Government  to  pay  these 
claims  exists,  a  great  injustice  is  being  done  to  the  claimants  by  the  inac- 
tion of  Congress.  If  there  is,  in  the  opinion  of  Congress,  no  obligation  to 
pay  them,  and  no  intention  of  paying  them,  let  us  say  so,  and  not  evade 
the  question  longer.  But,  sir,  as  I  have  said,  the  obligation  exists.  The 
people  whose  cause  I  present  to-day  do  not  come  as  suppliants  for  the 
bounty  of  the  Government,  but  as  suitors  for  what,  by  every  principle  of 
justice,  is  theirs. 

I  do  not  beg,  I  demand  for  them  what  the  Government  justly  owes  them. 
I  charge  Congress  with  the  virtual  repudiation  of  an  obligation  of  the  Gov- 
ernment as  sacred  as  its  obligation  to  pay  its  outstanding  bonds.  I  charge 
it  with  having  repudiated  this  obligation  at  a  time  and  under  circumstances 
which  make  a  most  unjust  discrimination  against  the  people  of  the  far 
West,  under  circumstances  which  have  the  appearance  of  selfishness  upon 
the  part  of  the  majority  of  Congress,  and  indifference  to  its  obligation  to 


459 

the  brave  and  loyal  men,  by  whose  enterprise  and  energy  civilization  has 
been  extended  over  the  western  slope  of  the  continent.  Their  demand  may 
not  be  granted;  my  feeble  presentation  of  their  claims  may  not  even  dis- 
turb the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs  in  the  even  tenor  of  their  way.  The 
bill  under  consideration  may  be  consigned,  with  the  others  introduced  by 
me,  which  have  preceded  it,  to  the  files  of  the  committee,  to  sleep  the  sleep 
of  death;  but  I  have  done  my  duty  in  presenting  the  cause  of  as  meritori- 
ous a  class  of  claimants  as  ever  sought  relief  from  Congress.  They  will 
never  understand  why  the  Government  so  suddenly  changed  its  policy,  and 
why  their  claims  have  been  repudiated.  They  will  not  cease  to  demand 
from  Congress  what  they  conceive  to  be  their  due ;  and  if  their  claims  shall 
be  now  ignored  and  relief  denied  them,  let  no  one  imagine  that  they  will 
cease  from  troubling  Congress.  The  claims  are  just.  If  not  paid  before, 
after  the  present  claimants  shall  have  passed  from  the  stage  of  action,  and 
the  claims  are  represented  by  their  children,  and  grandchildren,  and  when 
the  Territories  of  the  West  have  been  admitted  to  the  Union  and  are  rep- 
resented in  both  houses  of  Congress,  their  united  strength,  backed  by  the 
uniform,  practice  of  the  Government  for  so  many  years,  and  the  justice  of 
these  claims,  will  succeed  in  accomplishing  what,  from  their  numerical 
weakness,  the  delegation  in  Congress  from  the  remote  West  is  unable  to 
accomplish  to-day. 

Mr.  President,  I  now  submit  as  a  part  of  my  remarks  a  list  of  special 
appropriations  for  payment  of  Indian  depredation  claims,  as  follows: 

SPECIAL  LEGISLATION. — APPROPRIATIONS   FOR   INDIAN   DEPREDATION   CLAIMS. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  special  appropriations  for  payment  of  Indian  depredation 
claims.  In  each  case  it  is  stated  whether  payment  is  to  be  made  from  the  Treasury  or 
from  the  Indian  annuities.  The  total  of  amounts  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  is 
$1,604,028  25 ;  the  total  appropriated  from  Indian  annuities  is  $197,716  37.  But  these  totals 
do  not  embrace  the  sums  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  by  several  Acts  (March  2, 1827 ; 
May  31,  1830;  June  30,  1834),  in  which  the  amounts  are  not  specified. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1819  (Section  5,  3  Statutes,  517),  .$4,000  is  appropriated  from  the 
Treasury  to  satisfy  claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  for  property  stolen  or  destroyed 
by  the  Osages. 

By  Act  of  March  2,  1827  (6  Statutes,  361),  William  Morrison,  late  contractor  for  supplies 
to  the  Army,  is  allowed  credit  (out  of  the  Treasury)  for  sixty-nine  beef  cattle  taken  from 
near  the  military  post  of  Prairie  Du  Chien,  in  July,  1816,  by  certain  predatory  tribes  of 
Indians. 

By  Act  of  March  25,  1830  (6  Statutes,  408),  the  Secretary  of  War  is  directed  to  pay  $6,703 
from  the  Treasury  to  four  persons  for  property  taken  by  the  Osage  Indians  from  1816  to 
1823. 

By  Act  of  May  31,  1830  (4  Statutes,  428),  certain  depredation  claims  are  referred  to  the 
Third  Auditor  to  be  decided  according  to  the  provisions  of  Section  14  of  the  Act  of  March 
30,  1802,  the  money  to  be  paid  out  of  the  Treasury. 

By  Act  of  March  2,  1831  (4  Statutes,  470),  $1,300  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  for 
payment  of  sundry  claims  for  Indian  depredations. 

By  Act  of  June  "28,  1834  (4  Statutes,  705),  $7,800  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
defray  the  expense  of  investigating  claims  against  the  Seminoles  for  property  stolen  or 
destroyed  by  them  and  for  liquidating  such  as  may  be  satisfactorily  established. 

By  Act  of  June  30, 1834  (4  Statutes,  721),  payment  not  exceeding  .$250,000  is  granted  out 
of  the  Treasury  to  citizens  of  Georgia  for  claims  founded  upon  the  capture  and  detention 
or  destruction  of  property  by  Creek  Indians  prior  to  the  Act  of  March  30,  1802. 

By  Act  of  June  30,  1834  (6  Statutes,  581),  certain  claims  for  Indian  depredations  are 
referred  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  who  is  directed  to  pay  out  of  the  Treasury  all  which 
shall  be  established. 

By  Act  of  July  1, 1836  (6  Statutes  6.59),  $403  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to  James 
Alexander,  and  $575  to  Ira  Nash,  for  losses  sustained  and  depredations  committed  by  Sac 
and  Fox  Indians  in  1814. 

By  Act  of  July  2, 1836  (6  Statutes,  671),  the  Secretary  of  War  is  directed  to  pay  to  Joseph 
Bogy  $6,000  from  the  Indian  annuities  for  his  merchandise  and  property  taken  or  destroyed 
by  the  Choctaw  Indians  in  1807. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1837  (5  Statutes,  158-162),  the  President  is  directed  to  report  to  Con- 
gress as  to  depredations  committed  by  the  Seminoles  and  Creeks,  before  and  after  the 
resent  Indian  war. 


460 

By  Act  of  March  3, 1841  (6  Statutes,  822),  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  directed  to  pay 
out  of  the  Treasury,  to  Avery,  Saltmarsh  &  Co.,  mail  contractors,  $9,779  for  property 
employed  by  them  in  transporting  the  mail,  captured  and  destroyed  by  the  Creek  Indians 
in  May,  1836. 

By  Act  of  June  15, 1844  (6  Statutes,  913),  the  Secretary  of  War  is  directed  to  pay  to  George 
Wallis  $3,000  out  of  the  Indian  annuities,  for  the  destruction  of  cattle  belonging  to  the 
said  Wallis,  by  the  Sac  and  Fox  and  Iowa  Indians. 

By  Act  of  August  9,  1846  (9  Statutes,  24  Private),  $1,500  is  appropriated  from  the  Indian 
annuities  to  pay  to  the  legal  representatives  of  Cyrus  Turner  for  depredations  committed 
by  Sioux  Indians. 

By  Act  of  March  2,  1847  (9  Statutes,  41  Private),  $1,081  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Elijah  White  and  others  for  property  taken  by  the  Pawnee  Indians. 

By  Act  of  March  3, 1847  (9  Statutes,  41  Private),  $676  91  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Joseph  E.  Primeau  and  Thomas  J.  Chapman  for  depredations  committed  by  Yank- 
ton Indians. 

By  Act  of  August  14, 1848  (9  Statutes,  90  Private),  $800  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Charles  N.  Gibson  for  a  wagon  captured  and  destroyed  by  the  Seminole  Indians  in 
Middle  Florida  in  February,  1839. 

By  Act  of  March  3, 1849(9  Statutes,  141  Private),  $4,155  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Thomas  Talbot  and  others  for  property  taken  by  the  Pawnee  Indians. 

By  Act  of  August  30, 1852  (10  Statutes,  41,  55),  $1,200  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  James  M.  Marsh  for  losses  for  property  taken  by  the  Sioux  Indians  while  extending 
the  line  of  surveys  under  contract. 

By  Act  of  January  18,  1855  (10  Statutes,  843),  $500  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
pay  Moses  D.  Hogan  for  cattle  taken  by  the  Indians. 

By  Act  of  August  18, 1856  (11  Statutes,  65,  81),  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  ordered 
to  investigate  claims  for  depredations  by  Indians  in  New  Mexico. 

By  Act  of  March  16,  1858  (11  Statutes,  527,  the  sum  of  $200,  with  interest  from  the  first 
day  of  June,  1852,  was  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to  pay  John  Hamilton,  of  Cham- 
paign County,  Ohio,  for  his  tmie  and  services  during  his  imprisonment  with  the  Indians 
m  the  war  of  1812  with  Great  Britain. 

By  Act  of  June  19,  1860  (12  Statutes,  44,  58^,  $16,679  74  is  appropriated  from  th«  Treasury 
to  pay  for  the  loss  and  destruction  of  property  of  citizens  of  Minnesota  and  Iowa  at 
Spirit  Lake  in  1857,  by  Sioux  Indians. 

By  Act  of  March  2,  1861  (12  Statutes,  203),  $9,640  74  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  indemnify  citizens  of  Iowa  and  Minnesota  for  destruction  of  property  at  or  near  Spirit 
Lake  by  Inkpadutah's  band  of  Sioux  Indians. 

By  Act  of  February  16,  1863  (12  Statutes,  652,  658),  provision  is  made  for  payment  out  of 
their  forfeited  annuities  for  damages  done  by  Sioux  Indians  in  Minnesota  on  the  occasion 
of  the  Sioux  massacre  in  1862. 

-  By  Act  of  May  28,  1864  (13  Statutes,  92),  $928,411  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
pay  the  awards  of  the  commission  under  the  act  of  February  16, 1863,  for  damages  done 
by  the  Sioux  Indians  in  1862,  and  a  further  sum  of  $241,963  is  appropriated  for  additional 
claims. 

By  Act  of  June  29,  1866  (14  Statutes,  609),  $28,175  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  for 
Elizabeth  Woodward  and  George  Chorpenning  for  destruction  of  property  by  Indians  in 
1862,  and  by  the  second  section  of  the  same  Act  $26,370  is  appropriated  from  the  Indian 
annuities  to  pay  George  Chorpenning  for  property  destroyed  oy  Indians  prior  to  April  1, 
1856. 

By  Act  of  March  2,  1868  (15  Statutes,  356),  $400  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to  the 
widow  of  Maj.  Gen.  I.  B.  Richardson  for  one  mule  and  four  horses  stolen  from  him  by 
Apache  Indians  while  on  military  duty  in  New  Mexico. 

By  Act  of  April  10,  1869  (16  Statutes,  13, 39),  $10,906  34  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  for  depredations  committed  by  Indians  in  Northwestern  Iowa,  in  1857. 

By  Act  of  February  27, 1871  (16  Statutes,  704),  $2,5(54  10  is  appropriated  out  of  any  money 
appropriated  for  the  benefit  of  the  Cheyenne  and  Arapaho  Indians,  to  Lucy  A.  Smith,  for 
losses  by  depredations  of  said  Indians  in  Nebraska. 

By  Act  of  May  7,  1872  (17  Statutes,  395),  commissioners  are  appointed  to  examine  into 
depredations  committed  by  Indians  and  Mexicans  in  Texas. 

By  Act  of  May  21,  1872  (17  Statutes,  661),  $14,650  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
indemnify  Charles  F.  Tracy  for  depredations  committed  by  Apaches  in  May,  1870. 

By  Act  of  June  5,  1872  (17  Statutes,  675),  $10,000  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
pay  Mrs.  Fanny  Kelly  for  property  taken  and  destroved  by  Sioux  Indians  in  1864. 

By  Act  of  June  10,  1872  (17  Statutes,  690),  $30,000  is' appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
pay  the  heirs  of  Alexander  Watson  for  property  lost,  captured,  or  destroyed  in  Florida 
during  the  Indian  hostilities  commencing  in  1835. 

By  Act  of  June  10,  1872  (17  Statutes,  701),  $13,200  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
Elbridge  Gerry  for  valuable  services  rendered  the  Government  in  1864,  and  for  all  claims 
for  Indian  depredations  up  to  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this  Act. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1873  (17  Statutes,  766),  $2,250  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury  to 
Mrs.  Ann  Marble,  administratrix,  for  losses  by  depredations  by  Cheyenne  Indians. 

By  Act  of  April  28,  1874  (18  Statutes,  543),  $1,095  37  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Mrs.  Siloma  Deck  for  losses  by  depredations  by  Sioux  Indians  in  1862. 


461 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1875  (18  Statutes,  424),  $2,500  each  is  appropriated  to  Adelaide 
German  and  Julia  German,  two  white  children  captured  in  Kansas,  the  same  to  be  with- 
held from  annuities  due  the  Cheyennes. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1877  (19  Statutes,  549),  $2,283  92  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Hans  C.  Peterson  for  damages  by  Sioux  Indians  in  Minnesota  in  1862. 

By  Act  of  March  3, 1879  (20  Statutes,  39G),  $2,915  with  interest  at  7  per  cent  is  appropriated 
from  any  treaty  funds  of  the  Kiowa  Indians,  to  the  heirs  of  Abel  S.  Lee  for  property 
taken  and  destroyed  by  the  Kiowa  Indians  in  1872. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1879  (20  Statutes,  390),  $5,000  is  appropriated  out  of  any  money 
hereafter  appropriated  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  Cheyenne  Indians,  to  Mrs.  Celia  C. 
Short. 

By  Act  of  June  8,  1880  (21  Statutes,  549),  $15,867  50  is  appropriated  to  pay  Henry  Warren 
for  "damages  sustained  by  depredations  of  Indians  in  1871,  while  Warren  was  a  Govern- 
ment contractor,  the  same  to  be  withheld  from  the  annuities  due  the  Indians. 

By  Act  of  June  16,  1880  (21  Statutes,  588),  $2,000  is  appropriated  from  the  annuities  due 
the  Cheyenne  or  Arapaho  Indians  to  Amanda  M.  Cook,  whose  mother  was  killed  and 
herself  captured  by  the  Indians  in  1865. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1881  (21  Statutes,  (MO),  $58,659  46  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Dodd,  Brown  &  Co.,  assignees  of  E.  M.  Durfee  &  Co.,  and  others,  for  depredations 
committed  bv  various  tribes  of  Indians,  the  amounts  to  be  deducted  from  the  annuities. 

By  Act  of  May  17,  1882  (22  Statutes,  86),  $9,870  10  is  appropriated  from  unexpended 
balances  of  treaty  funds  to  pay  various  claimants  for  damages  caused  by  raids  of  North- 
ern Chevennes. 

By  Act  of  March  3,  1883  (22  Statutes,  804),  $12,200  is  appropriated  from  moneys  due  the 
Cheyenne  and  Arapaho  Indians  to  Powers  &  Newman,  and  D.  and  B.  Powers  for  depre- 
dations committed  by  these  Indians. 

By  Act  of  March  20,  1884  (23  Statutes,  525),  $5,400  is  appropriated  from  the  Treasury 
to  pay  Louisa  Boddv  for  depredations  committed  by  the  Modoc  Indians. 

By  Act  of  March  3, 1885  (23  Statutes,  498),  $46,770  21  is  appropriated  to  pay  W.  C.  Oburn 
out  of  annuities  for  depredations  committed  by  the  Cheyenne  and  Arapaho  Indians. 


462 


List  of  all  Treaties  by  which  the  Indians  Agree  to  Allow  Payment  of  Claims  against 
them,  out  of  their  annuities,  for  depredations  committed  on  the  property  of 
White  Men. 

[The  references  by  pages  are  to  the  "Eevision  of  Indian  Ti-eaties,"  1873.] 


Tribes. 


Date. 


Article. 


Page. 


Blackfeet 

Calapooias 

Chastas 

Cherokees 

Cherokees 

Chej^ennes  and  Arapahoes 

North  Cheyennes  and  North  Arapahoes. . . 

Chippewas  (see  note  a  below) 

Comanches  and  Wichitas j  May  19, 

Comanches,  Kiowas,  Apaches February  12,  1854 

Comanches,  Kiowas August  25, 1868... 

Crows -    July  25,  1868 


April  25, 1856.... 
April  10,1855-... 
April  10,1855-... 
January  21,  1795 
October  2,  1798.. 
August  19,1868.. 
August  25, 1868.- 
May    5,1864  .... 


Dwamish  and  Squamish 

Flatheads .... 

Kansas  (see  note  b  below) 

Kansas 

Kiowas,  Katakas,  etc. 

Makahs 

Navajos  - 

Nes  Percys 

Nisquallies,  Puyallups 

•Omahas 

Osages  (see  note  c  below)... ^  January  7,  1819 

Osages  (see  noted  below) 1  December  30,  1825.- 

Osages  (see  note  e  below) March  2,  1839 - 

Oregon,  Middle April  19, 1859 

Otoes  and  Missourias June  21,  1854 

Pawnees ,  May  26,  1858 


April  11, 1859 

April  18, 1859 

December  30,  1825-.- 
December30,  1825-.. 
February  21,1838.... 
April  18, 1859.- 
August  12, 1818 
April  29, 1859.. 
March  3,  1855. 
June  21,  1854 


Poncas . 

•Quapaws 

Quinaielts,  etc 

Sacs  and  Foxes 

.S'Klallams 

Snakes 

Sioux,  Yanktons 

Sioux,  Mendawakanton,  Wahpakosta. 

Sioux,  Sisseton,  Wahpeton 

Sioux,  Brul6,  Ogallalia 

Shoshones,  Eastern  and  Bannacks  ... 

Utahs 

Umpquas  and  Calapooias 

Utes 

Walla  Wallas  and  Cayuses 

Yakamas 


April  11, 1859 

July  15,  1818 

April  11, 1859 

February  12, 1823., 

April  29, 1859 

July  10,  1866 

February  26, 1859. 
March  31,  1859  .... 
March  31, 1859  .... 
February  24, 1869. 
February  24, 1869.. 
December  14,  1864, 
March  30,  1855.... 

November  6, 1868 

April  11,1859 

April  18, 1859 


11 

6 
8 
4 
9 
1 
1 
4 

3,  5 
4,108 
1 
1 
9 
8 
7 

10 
3,  5,  7 
9 
1 
8 
8 
10 

1,  2 
9 
6 
7 
9 
5 
7 
6 


10 

22 

25 

32 

35 

130 

136 

255 

304,  305 

310,  311 

319 

328 

381 

388,  389 

412 

413 

456,  457 

463,  464 

528 

537,  538 

563 

567,  568 

575,  576 

580 

584 

627 

640 

653 

664 

717,  718 

725,  726 

738,  739 

803 

805 

861 

88,  89 

907 

914,  915 

932 

972 

980,  981 

983,  984 

992 

1,045 


a  The  United  States  agrees  to  appropriate  $100,000  to  pay  for  depredations  and  forcible  exactions. 
b  The  United  States  agrees  to  pay  for  all  depredations  since  1815. 

c  Depi-edations  committed  since  1814  are  to  be  paid  by  the  United  States,  in  consideration  of  the  cession  of 
Indian  lands. 

d  The  United  States  agrees  to  pay  for  all  depredations  since  1808. 
e  The  United  States  agrees  to  pay  all  depredation  claims. 


468 


List  of  all  Treaties  by  which  the  Indians  Agree  to  Use  Their  Best  Efforts  to  Return 
Stolen  Property  or  to  Punish  Offenders,  but  do  not  Provide  for  Payment  out  of 
their  Annuities. 

[The  references  by  pages  are  to  the  "Kevision  of  Indian  Treaties,"  1873.] 


Date. 


Article. 


Page. 


Belantse-Etoas,  etc 

Chippewas 

Chippewas 

Comanches,  lonies,  Anadacas,  Caddoes,  etc 

Crows 

Delawares 

lowas 

Kaskaskias,  Peorias 

Klamath,  etc 

Kickapoos 

Makahs 

Miamies 

Mandans 

Osages  -- - 

Osages 

Otoes  and  Missourias 

Pawnees 

Poncas 

Ricaras .-. 

Rogue  Rivers  - 

Sacs  and  Foxes 

Shawnees 

Sioux,  Yanktons,  Tetons,  Yanktonais 

Sioux,  Ogallallas 

Sioux,  Oncpapas 

Unipquas 

Winnebagoes  — 


February  6,  1826. 
January  29,  1855  . 

April?,  1855 

March  8,  1847 

February  6,  1826.. 
February  14,  1805 

July  17,  1854 

August  10,  1854  . . 
February  17,  1870 

July  17,  1854 

February  6,  1826  . 
August  4,  1854  ... 
February  6,  1826  . 
December  26,  1815 
January  21,  1867  . 
February  6,  1826  . 
February  6,  1826  . 
February  6,  1826  . 
February  26,  1826 
April  12, 1854  .... 

July  17,  1854 

November  2,  1854 
February  6,  1826  . 
February  6,  1826  . 
February  6,  1826  . 
February  5,  1855  . 
May  23, '1855 


6 
6 

14,  15 
225,  226 

9 

270 

8 

307 

5 

326,  327 

3 

336 

11 

406 

10 

429 

9 

436 

9 

447 

5 

460 

9 

519 

6 

466 

9 

573,  574 

10 

588 

5 

632 

5 

643 

5 

667,  668 

6 

728,  729 

6 

731,  732 

10 

761,  762 

14 

800 

5 

868 

5 

872,  873 

5 

874,  875 

6 

976 

10 

1,010 

464 


List  of  all  Treaties  by  which  it  is  Provided  that  the  Indians  shall  be  Paid  by  the 
Government  for  Depredations  Committed  on  their  Property  by  White  Men. 

[The  references  by  pages  are  to  the  "  Revision  of  Indian  Treaties,"  1873.] 


Tribes. 


Date. 


Article.     I       Page. 


Blackfeet 

Belantse-Etoas .-- 

Cherokees 

Creeks 

Cheyennes  and  Arapahoes 

Number  Cheyennes  and  number  Arapahoes. 

Choctaws  and  Chickasaws 

Comanches  and  Wichitas 

Comanches,  Kiowas,  Apaches.. 

Comanches,  Kiowas 

Crows 


Crows 

Kansas 

Kiowas,  Katakas,  etc. 

Makahs 

Mandans  ._ 

Navajoes 

Osages  

Otoes  and  Missourias 

Pawnees  .-. 

Poncas '. 

Quapaws 

Ricaras 

Rogue  Rivers 

Sacs  and  Foxes 

Shawnees' 

Sioux,  Yanktons,  Tetons,  Yanktonais 
Sioux,  Ogallallas 


Sioux,  Oncpapas 

Sioux,  Ogallallas,  Bruits 

Shoshones,  Eastern,  and  Bannacks 

Utahs. 

Umpquas __. 

Utes 


April  25,  1856 

February  6,  1826  .. 
October  2,  1798.-. 
August  28,  1856... 
August  19,  1868... 
August  25,  1868  ... 

March  4,  1856 

May  19,  1836 

February  12,  1854  . 
August  25,  1868  ... 
February  6, 1826  . . 

July  25.  1868 

December  30,  1825. 
February  21,  1838  . 
February  6,  1826.. 
February  6,  1826.. 
August  12,  1818  ... 
December  26, 1815. 
February  6,  1826.. 
February  6,  1826.. 
February  6,  1826  .  . 

July  15, 1818 

February  26,  1825  . 

April  12,  1854 

February  12,  1823  . 
November  2,  1854  . 
February  6,  1826.. 
February  6,  1826.. 
February  6,  1826  . . 
February  24,  1869  _ 
February  24,  1869 . 
December  14, 1864. 
February  5,  1855.. 
November  6,  1868  . 


9 

18 
1 
1 

14 
3 
4,108 
1 
5 
1 

10 
3,5,  7 
5 
6 
1 
9 
5 
5 
5 
6 
6 
6 
5 

11 
5 
5 
5 
1 
1 
6 
6 
6 


9 

14,  15 

35 

112 

130 

136 

280 

304 

310,  311 

319 

326,  327 

328 

413 

456,  457 

460 

466 

528 

573,  574 

643 

643 

667,  668 

717,  718 

728,  729 

731,  732 

738,  739 


872,  873 

574,  575 

914,  915 

932 

972 

976 

983,  984 


EXHIBITS 


EEBELLION  CLAIM. 


30' 


EXHIBIT  No.  1. 

San  Quentin,  Cal.,  December  21,  1879. 

My  Dear  Captain:  I  received  your  letter  of  the  twenty-seventh  ultimo 
some  time  ago,  and  although  I  have  twice  been  in  Sacramento,  I  have  been 
unable  to  see  the  General  until  two  days  ago.  I  find  he  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  matters  of  the  State's  war  claims. 

By  Act  of  Congress,  1861,  the  Governors  of  States  are  made  the  agents, 
or  declared  the  proper  parties,  to  collect  claims  arising  out  of  the  rebel- 
lion. In  accordance  with  this  Act,  and  an  Act  of  our  Legislature,  passed 
soon  after  Governor  Booth  became  Governor,  he  appointed  as  agents  for 
the  purpose  of  making  such  collections.  Judge  Hale  and  Thos.  Nosier. 
They  employed  me  to  put  the  papers  in  shape,  which  I  did,  and  all  the 
original  vouchers  were  sent  to  Washington  and  are  now  in  the  hands  of 
my  friend  Arthur  Denver.  These  papers  have  been  laying  there  for  over 
seven  years — why  I  do  not  know.  Arthur  Denver  can  explain  the  whole 
matter  to  you,  as  the  business  is  in  his  hands,  and  he  is  interested.  Of 
•course,  if  he  could  have  done  anything  before  this  he  would  have  done  so. 
As  to  the  Indian  war  claims,  the  State  absolutely  refuses  to  recognize  them, 
having  outlawed  them  by  Act  of  the  Legislature  many  years  ago.  The 
Act  was  repudiation,  nevertheless  our  glorious  young  State  did  the  thing. 

There  is  money  in  the  civil  war  claims,  the  State's  claim  being  just  for  a 
large  sum  of  money.     See  Arthur  and  if  you  and  he  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion anything  can  be  done  at  present,  I  will  bring  about  an  arrangement 
with  the  agents  in  your  interest.     All  well. 
Yours  truly, 

JAMES  A.   JOHNSON. 

Capt.  John  Mullan. 

EXHIBIT  No.  2. 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  on  the  twenty-sixth  day  of  Feb- 
Tuary,  1881,  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California  did  pass  the  fol- 
lowing Concurrent  Resolution : 

CONCURRENT  RESOLUTION,  NO.  12. 

Whereas,  The  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California  did,  on  March  1, 
1872,  pass  the  following  preamble  and  resolution,  to  wit : 

Whereas,  The  Congress  of  the  United  States  did,  on  the  twenty-seventh  of  July,  1861, 
pass  the  following  Act  to  wit:  "Be  it  enacted,"  etc.,  ''that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
DC,  and  he  is  hereby  directed,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropri- 
ated, to  pay  the  Governor  of  any  State,  or  his  duly  authorized  agents,  the  costs,  charges, 
and  expenses  properly  incurred  by  such  State  for  enrolling,  subsisting,  clothing,  supply- 
ing, arming,  equipping,  paying,  and  transporting  its  troops  employed  in  aiding  to  suppress 
the  present  insurrection  against  the  United  States,  to  be  settled  upon,  proper  vouchers  to 
be  filed  and  passed  upon  by  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury;  and  whereas, 
it  is  believed  that,  under  this  Act,  a  considerable  sum  of  money  is  due  from  the  General 
Government  to  the  State  of  California;  therefore,  be  it 

"  Resolved  by  the  Senate,  the  Assembly  concurring,  That  the  Governor  be  authorized  to  con- 
tract with  the  agents,  to  be  appointed  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act  referred 


468 

to ;  that  their  compensation  for  services  rendered  under  said  Act  shall  not  exceed  in  the 
aggregate  ten  per  cent  of  the  money  collected  and  paid  to  the  State,  provided  that  the 
State  shall,  in  no  event,  become  liable  for  any  expenses,  fees,  or  salaries  of  any  nature 
whatever,  other  than  such  contingent  commission;"  and  whereas,  the  Governor  did,  on 
the  fifteenth  day  of  March,  1872,  appoint  and  commission  James  E.  Hale  and  Thomas  M. 
Nosier  as  agents  on  the  part  of  the  State  of  California  to  collect,  or  cause  to  be  collected, 
such  claims,  and  fixed  the  amount  of  the  commissions  at  ten  per  cent  of  the  sums  col- 
lected; and  whereas,  the  said  sum  of  ten  per  cent  is  totally  inadequate  for  the  service  to 
be  performed,  and  the  necessary  expenses  to  be  incurred;  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  Governor  is  hereby  authorized  to  fix  the  compensation  to  be  received 
by  the  said  Commissioners  at  twenty-five  per  cent  of  each  of  the  sums  or  claims  which 
may  be,  by  them  or  their  agents,  collected  from  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

And  whereas,  the  said  Commission  issued,  as  recited  in  the  foregoing 
preamble  and  resolution,  to  the  said  James  E.  Hale  and  Thomas  M.  Nosier,, 
is  as  follows : 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  I,  Kewton  Booth,  Governor  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, under  and  in  pursuance  of  an  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled 
"An  Act  to  indemnify  the  States  for  expenses  incurred  by  them  in  defense  of  the  United 
States,"  approved  July  27,  1861,  and  in  pursuance  of  Senate  Concurrent  Resolution,  No. 
36,  adopted  and  concurred  in  by  the  Assembly  at  the  nineteenth  session  of  the  Legisla- 
ture of  the  State  of  California,  reciting  the  said  Act  of  Congress,  and  resolving  that  the 
Governor  be  authorized  to  contract  with  the  agents,  to  be  appointed  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  the  Act  referred  to;  that  their  compensation,  for  services  rendered 
under  said  Act,  shall  not  exceed  in  the  aggregate  ten  per  cent  of  the  moneys  collected 
and  paid  to  the  State;  provided,  that  the  State  shall,  in  no  event,  become  liable  for  any 
expenses,  fees,  or  salaries,  of  any  nature  whatever,  other  than  such  contingent  Commis- 
sion, have  nominated,  constituted,  and  appointed,  and  by  these  presents  do  nominate, 
constitute,  and  appoint  those  worthy  and  trusty  citizens,  James  E.  Hale,  of  the  County 
of  Placer,  and  Thomas  M.  Nosier,  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  my  true  and 
lawful  agents  and  attorneys  in  fact,  for  me  and  in  my  name,  as  Governor  of  the  State  of 
California,  as  aforesaid,  aiid  in  my  place  and  stead  as  such  Governor,  and  for  and  in 
behalf  of  the  State  of  California,  to  ask,  demand,  prosecute  to  collection,  recover,  and 
receive  of  and  from  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America,  all  and  every  such 
sum  or  sums  of  money  as  may  have  been  advanced,  disbursed,  paid,  laid  out,  or  expended 
by  the  State  of  California  for  enrolling,  subsisting,  clothing,  supplying,  arming,  equip- 
ping, paying,  and  transporting  its  troops,  employed  in  aiding  to  suppress  the  insurrection 
against  the  United  States,  existing  and  in  progress  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  said  Act 
ot  Congress;  and  my  said  agents  are,  and  their  said  substitute  or  substitutes,  are  hereby 
authorized  and  empowered  to  prosecute,  either  in  the  name  of  the  State  of  California  or 
in  my  name,  as  the  Governor  thereof,  any  and  all  claims  and  demands  which  said  State 
may  have  against  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  for  or  on  account  of  the  costs 
and  expenses  incurred,  payed,  or  defrayed,  for  the  purposes  before  mentioned,  under  the- 
Act  of  Congress,  before  mentioned,  or  any  other  Act  of  Congress,  before  the  Courts  of  the 
United  States,  or  the  Congress  thereof,  or  any  department  of  the  Government  thereof,  in 
such  manner  as  to  them,  or  him  or  them,  shall  seem  to  be  for  the  best  interests  of  said 
State  of  California ;  and  upon  the  payment  thereof,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  proper 
receipts  and  acquittances  to  give,  sign,  and  deliver  in  my  name,  as  such  Governor;  also, 
to  sign  all  orders,  vouchers,  and  all  bonds  of  indemnity,  or  bonds  on  appeal,  and  to 
indorse  all  drafts,  and  orders,  and  vouchers  in  my  name,  as  such  Governor,  either  with 
or  without  indicating  that  the  same  is  done  by  procuration,  which  may  be  requisite  or 
necessary  in  or  about  the  prosecution  of  said  business,  or  the  collection  of  said  claims  or  ■ 
demands.  Giving  and  granting  unto  my  said  agents  and  attorneys  in  fact,  and  to  their 
substitutes,  full  power  and  authority  to  do  and  perform  all  and  eVery  act  or  thing  what- 
soever, which  may  be  or  become  necessary  or  requisite  to  be  done  in  and  about  the 
premises,  as  fully,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  I,  as  such  Governor,  might  or  could  do 
if  personally  present;  and  also  one  or  more  agents  and  attorneys  under  them  to  appoint,, 
employ,  and  retain,  with  full  x>ower  of  substitution  and  revocation,  hereby  ratifying  and 
confirming  all  that  my  said  agents  and  attorneys,  or  their  substitutes,  shall  lawfully  do  or 
cause  to  be  done  by  virtue  hereof;  distinctly  providing,  however,  that  no  expense  or  obli- 
gation shall  be  incurred  by  them,  or  him  or  them,  in  the  prosecution  of  said  business,  or 
the  collection  of  said  claims  or  demands,  for  which  the  State  of  California,  or  1,  a&  such 
Governor,  shall  or  may,  in  any  event,  become  liable.  The  compensation  of  my  said 
agents  and  attorneys  in  fact,  and  their  substitutes,  being  contingent  upon  the  payment  or 
adjustment  of  said  claims  or  demands;  this  power  of  attorney  is  intended  to  include  the 
protection  of  them  and  their  interests,  and  compensation  for  them  and  their  services  in 
the  premises,  as  per  agreement  of  even  date  herewith,  and,  therefore,  is  and  shall  be: 
irrevocable. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand,  and  have  caused  the  great  seal  of  State 
to  be  affixed,  at  the  City  of  Sacramento,  State  of  California,  this  fifteenth  day  of  March,  in. 
the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  seventy-two. 

[seal  of  the  state  of  CALIFORNIA.]  NEWTON  BOOTH, 

Governor  of  California. 


469 

Now,  therefore,  by  virtue  of  the  power  vested  in  me  as  Governor  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, and  by  virtue  of  the  said  Act  of  Congress  and  the  said  resolution,  hereinbefore 
recited,  I  hereby  reaffirm  the  said  Commission  herein  recited,  with  all  the  powers  therein 
contained,  and  fix  the  compensation  of  the  said  Commissioners,  in  accordance  with  the 
said  resolution,  at  the  sum  of  twenty-five  per  cent  of  each  of  the  sums  or  claims  collected 
for  the  State  of  California  from  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand,  and  have  caused  the  great  seal  of  State 
to  be  affixed,  at  the  City  of  Sacramento,  State  of  California,  this  first  day  of  March,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eighty-ouK 

[seal  of  the  state  of  CALIFORNIA.]  GEORGE  C.  PERKINS, 

Governor  of  California. 

State  of  California,  ) 

Department  of  State,  j     * 

I,  Thomas  L.  Thompson,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of  California,  hereby  certify 
that  the  foregoing  is  a  full,  true,  and  correct  copy  of  a  Commission  and  power  of  attor- 
ney, duly  executed  as  therein  set  forth,  by  George  C.  Perkins,  Governor  of  the  State  of 
California,  on  the  first  day  of  March,  A.  D.  1871,  at  the  City  and  County  of  Sacramento, 
and  caused  the  great  seal  of  said  State  to  be  thereunto  affixed,  as  therein  set  forth. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand,  and  have  hereunto  affixed  the  great 
seal  of  State  of  California,  at  the  City  of  Sacramento,  this  ninth  (9th)  day  of  February, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eighty-three. 

[SEAL.]  THOS.  L.  THOMPSON, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of  California. 


EXHIBIT  No.  1V^. 


Hon.  0.  Welborn,   U.  S.  H.  R. 


February  16, 


Dear  Sir:  Permit  me  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  in  his  estimates  to  Congress  asks  for  $25,000  in  order  to  enable 
him  to  execute  the  Act  of  Congress,  twenty-seventh  June,  1882.  In  exam- 
ining State  claims,  I  am  doing  all  I  can  as  State  Agent  for  California, 
Oregon,  and  Nevada,  with  our  delegations,  and  because  all  three  of  said  States 
are  interested  therein,  and  as  Texas  is  also  interested  therein,  may  I  ask 
your  considerate  attention  to  the  matter,  believing  as  I  do,  that  a  forcible 
word  from  you  to  the  members  of  the  Appropriation  Committee  having  the 
Sundry  Civil  Bill  in  charge,  would  secure  said  item  in  said  bill.  I  shall 
also  give  to  our  Pacific  Coast  Senators  such  data  in  regard  thereto  as  may 
aid  the  matter  in  the  Senate. 

Yours  very  truly, 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
State  Agent  for  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada. 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  session.    H.  R. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     February  19, 1885 — Referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Appropriations  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

AMENDMENT 

Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Dolph  to  the  bill  (H.  R.  —  )  making 
appropriations  for  sundry  civil  expenses  of  the  Government  for  the  fiscal 
year  ending  June  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-six,  and  for  other 
purposes,  viz.:  Insert  the  following: 

Examination  of  State  claims  under  Act  of  June  twenty-seventh,  eighteen 
hundred  and  eighty-two:  For  payment  of  expenses  of  a  Board  of  three 


470 

officers  of  the  army  to  be  detailed  to  assist  the  Secretary  of  War  in  ex- 
amining and  reporting  upon  the  claims  of  the  States  and  Territories  named 
in  the  Act  of  Jmie  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-two  (chap- 
ter two  hundred  and  forty-one  of  the  laws  of  the  Forty-seventh  Congress, 
first  session),  while  on  such  duty, including  clerk  hire, hotel,  traveling,  and 
such  other  necessary  expenses  as  shall  be  approved  by  the  Secretary  of 
War;  provided,  that  said  officers  shall,  before  proceeding  to  the  discharge 
of  said  duties,  be  sworn  that  they  will  carefully  examine  said  claims,  and 
that  they  will,  to  the  best  of  their  ability,  make  a  just,  true,  and  impartial 
statement  thereof,  as  required  by  said  Act;  this  amount  to  be  immediately 
available,  twenty-five  thousand  dollars. 


EXHIBIT  No.  3. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    Senate.    Mis.  Doc.  No.  54. 

LETTER  FROM  THE  SECRETARY  OF  WAR  TO  HON.  S.  B.  MAXEY, 

In  relation  to  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Texas,  presented  under  the  Act  of 

June  27,  1882. 

January  29,  1886 — Referred  to  the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  and 
ordered  to  be  printed. 

War  Department,         ] 
W^ASHiNGTON  CiTY,  January  17,  1886.  j 

Sir:  Referring  to  our  recent  conversation  in  regard  to  the  claim  of  the 
State  of  Texas,  presented  under  the  Act  of  June  27,  1882  (22  Stats.,  Ill, 
112),  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  the  first  installment  of  the  claim 
(amount,  $671,400  29)  came  before  the  Department  from  the  Third  Aud- 
itor of  the  Treasur}^  July  9,  1884,  and  the  action  then  taken  in  the  matter 
appears  in  the  letter  from  this  Department  to  Mr.  Dorn,  dated  July  16, 
1884,  copy  herewith.  The  papers  therein  mentioned  were  returned  to  the 
agent  of  the  State  July  25, 1884.  November  2, 1885,  the  Third  Auditor  of  the 
Treasury  wrote  to  the  Department,  transmitting,  through  Mr.  W.  H.  Pope, 
agent  of  the  State,  the  papers  in  the  claim,  which  papers  were  received 
here  November  17,  1885,  and  they  are  now  being  stamped  and  marked. 

In  regard  to  the  subject  of  the  State  claims  mentioned  in  said  Act,  I  beg 
to  inform  you  that  the  great  difficulty  experienced  in  disposing  of  the  claim 
of  the  State  of  Kansas,  the  first  one  presented  thereunder,  has  caused  the 
Department  to  delay  taking  up  the  other  claims  pending.  While  the  title 
of  the  Act,  and  the  wording  of  the  first  section  thereof,  would  seem  to  con- 
vey the  impression  that  the  claims  were  to  be  adjusted  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  "  with  the  aid  and  assistance  of  the  Secretary  of  War," 
the  whole  duty  of  examining  and  auditing  the  claims  was,  by  Section  2, 
imposed  upon  the  Secretary  of  War,  leaving  the  Treasury  Department  the 
simple  duty  of  verifying  the  computations  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

The  policy  thus  indicated  differed  widely  from  that  prescribed  in  Section 
236  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  that  "all  claims  and  demands  whatever  by 
the  United  States,  or  against  them,  and  all  accounts  whatever  in  which  the 
United  States  are  concerned,  either  as  debtors  or  as  creditors,  shall  be  set- 
tled and  adjusted  in  the  Department  of  the  Treasury,"  and  differs  also  from 
the  provisions  for  the  adjudication  of  State  claims  under  the  Act  of  July 
27, 1861  (12  Stats.,  page  276),  which  were  "to be  settled  upon  proper  vouch- 


471 

ers,  to  be  filed,  and  passed  upon  by  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the 
Treasury." 

The  claims  arising  under  the  Act  are  said  to  amount  to  $10,000,000  (that 
of  Texas  is  now  stated  at  $1,842,443  78),  and  the  vast  labor  of  examining 
the  papers,  pointing  out  the  evidence  required  to  perfect  the  vouchers  and 
show  the  necessity  of  calling  out  the  militia,  whose  services  are  charged 
for,  fixing  the  rate  to  be  allowed  on  each  voucher,  and  tabulating  the  same, 
many  thousand  in  number,  must  be  performed  by  the  Secretary  of  War, 
and  no  provision  has  been  provided  by  Congress  for  this  laborious  work. 

Two  years  were  consumed  in  disposing  of  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Kan- 
sas, and  if  the  same  course  is  to  be  pursued  with  the  other  claims  arising 
under  the  Act,  it  will  be  some  time  before  the  claim  of  Texas  is  reached; 
that  of  Nevada  being  next  in  order  of  receipt. 

The  subject  of  the  claims  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  Congress  at  the 
last  session  (see  report  of  Secretary  of  War  for  1884,  pages  4,  5,  and  esti- 
mates for  1886  on  page  206,  of  House  Ex.  Doc.  No.  5,  Forty-eighth  Con- 
gress, second  session),  and  it  has  again  been  presented  in  the  Secretary's 
report'  for  1885  (pages  35  and  36) .  An  estimate  to  defray  the  cost  of  exam- 
ining the  claims  will  be  found  on  page  225  of  House  Ex.  Doc.  No.  5,  Forty- 
ninth  Congress,  first  session. 

I  inclose  draft  of  a  bill  which,  if  enacted,  will  enable  the  Department  to 
dispose  of  the  matter. 

Copies  of  the  above  mentioned  reports  are  inclosed. 
Very  respectfully, 


Hon.  S.  B.  Maxey,  United  States  Senate. 


WM.  C.  ENDICOTT, 

Secretary  of  War. 


EXHIBIT  No.  4. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  1284. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     January  29,  1886. 
Mr.  Maxey  introduced  the  following  bill,  which  was  read  twice,  and 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Appropriations: 

A  BILL 

To  enable  the  Secretary  of  War  to  examine  the  claims  of  the  States  of  Texas, 
Colorado^  Oregon^  California,  and  Nevada,  and  the  Territories  of  Wash- 
ington and  Idaho,  as  directed  by  the  Act  approved  June  twenty-seventh y 
eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-two,  chapter  two  hundred  and  forty-one  of  the 
laws  of  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  sum  of  twenty-five  thou- 
sand dollars,  or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  necessary,  is  hereby  appro- 
priated out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  for 
payment  of  the  expenses  of  a  board  of  three  officers  of  the  army  to  be 
detailed  to  assist  the  Secretary  of  War  in  examining  and  reporting  upon 
the  claims  of  the  States  and  Territories  named  in  the  Act  of  June  twenty- 
seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-two  (chapter  two  hundred  and  forty- 
one  of  the  laws  of  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session) ,  while  on  such 
duty,  including   clerk  hire,  hotel,  traveling,  and   such   other  necessary 


472 

expenses  as  shall  be  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  War;  provided,  that 
said  officers  shall,  before  proceeding  to  the  discharge  of  said  duties,  be 
sworn  that  they  will  carefully  examine  said  claims,  and  that  they  will,  to 
the  best  of  their  ability,  make  a  just,  true,  and  impartial  statement  thereof, 
as  required  by  said  Act;  this  amount  to  be  immediately  available. 


EXHIBIT  No.  5. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  9478. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  July  1,  1886 — Referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  • 

AMENDMENT 

Intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Maxey  to  the  bill  (H.  R.  9478)  making 
appropriations  for  sundry  civil  expenses  of  the  Government  for  the  fiscal 
year  ending  June  thirtieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-seven,  and  for 
other  purposes,  viz.:  Insert  the  following: 

That  the  sum  of  twenty-five  thousand  dollars,  or  so  much  thereof  as 
may  be  necessary,  is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treas- 
ury not  otherwise  appropriated,  for  payment  of  the  expenses  of  a  board  of 
three  officers  of  the  army  to  be  detailed  to  assist  the  Secretary  of  War  in 
examining  and  reporting  upon  the  claims  of  the  States  and  Territories 
named  in  the  Act  of  June  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty- 
two  (chapter  two  hundred  and  forty-one  of  the  laws  of  the  Forty-seventh 
Congress,  first  session),  while  on  such  duty,  including  clerk  hire,  hotel, 
traveling,  and  such  other  necessary  expenses  as  shall  be  approved  by  the 
Secretary  of  War;  provided,  that  said  officers  shall,  before  proceeding  to 
the  discharge  of  said  duties,  be  sworn  that  they  will  carefully  examine 
said  claims,  and  that  they  will,  to  the  best  of  their  ability,  make  a  just, 
true,  and  impartial  statement  thereof,  as  required  by  said  Act;  this  amount 
to  be  immediately  available. 


EXHIBIT  No.  6. 

The  reading  of  the  bill  was  resumed.  The  next  amendment  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations  was,  after  line  2160,  to  insert: 

Examination  of  claims  of  certain  States  and  Territories :  To  enable  the  Secretary  of.  War 
to  make  examination  and  report  upon  the  claims  of  the  States  and  Territories  named  in 
the  Act  of  June  27,  1882  (chapter  241  of  the  laws  of  the  Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  ses- 
sion), $7,500,  said  sum  to  be  expended  in  his  discretion. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  I  should  like  to  have  the  Chairman  explain  that  fully. 
What  are  these  claims? 

Mr.  Allison.  These  are  the  Indian  hostility  claims.  An  Act  was  passed 
June  27,  1882.  I  wish  to  amend  the  amendment  by  inserting  $10,000  in 
the  line  2167  instead  of  $7,500. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  I  wish  the  Senator  would  explain  a  little  more  fully 
what  this  provision  is  of  1882. 

Mr.  Allison.  The  Senator  has  the  statutes.  It  applies  to  several  States 
and  Territories.  It  applies  to  Kansas,  Texas,  Oregon,  and,  I  think,  Nevada. 
The  State  of  Kansas  has  had  her  claim  settled  and  paid,  and  the  State  of 


473 

Texas,  I  believe,  is  now  having  her  claims  examined.  It  is  necessary  for 
the  Secretary  of  War  to  have  an  appropriation  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
the  proper  officers  of  the  Government  to  make  these  examinations.  It  is 
merely  intended  to  cover  expenditures. 

Mr.  Hoar.     What  are  they? 

Mr.  Allison.     The  examinations  are  made  by  the  regular  army  officers. 

Mr.  Hoar.     What  is  the  nature  of  the  claims? 

Mr.  Allison.     They  arise  out  of  Indian  wars. 

Mr.  Edmunds.     It  is  a  pretty  broad  statute. 

Mr.  Allison.     So  it  is. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  I  should  be  glad  to  have  a  little  attention  given  to  this. 
This  Act  of  the  twenty-seventh  of  June,  1882,  chapter  241  of  the  laws  of 
the  first  session  of  the  Forty-seventh  Congress  (volume  22,  page  111),  pro- 
vides— 

That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed,  with  the  aid  and 
assistance  of  the  Secretary  of  War— 

Which  I  suppose  implies  military  assistance  by  the  armies  of  the  United 
States — 

To  cause  to  be  examined  and  investigated  all  the  claims  of  the  States  of  Texas,  Colorado, 
Oregon,  Nebraska,  California,  Kansas,  and  Nevada,  and  the  Territories  of  Washington 
and  Idaho,  against  the  United  States  of  America  for  moneys  alleged  to  have  been  expended 
and  for  indebtedness  alleged  to  have  been  assumed  by  said  States  and  Territories  in 
organizing,  arming,  equipping,  supplying,  clothing,  subsisting,  transporting,  and  paying 
the  volunteer  and  military  forces  of  said  States  and  Territories  called  into  active  service 
by  the  proper  authorities  thereof,  between  the  fifteenth  day  of  April,  in  the  year  1861,  and 
the  date  of  this  Act. 


Being  a  period  of  twenty  years  in  round  numbers- 


To  repeal  invasions  and  Indian  hostilities  in  said  States  and  Territories  and  upon  their 
"borders,  including  all  proper  expenses  necessarily  incurred  by  said  States  and  Territories 
on  accoimt  of  said  forces  having  been  so  called  into  active  service  as  aforesaid,  and  also 
all  proper  claims  paid  or  assumed  by  said  States  and  Territories  for  horses  and  equip- 
ments actually  lost  by  said  forces  while  in  line  of  duty  in  active  service  (excepting  and 
excluding  therefrom  any  claim  said  State  of  Oregon  may  have  for  money  expended  and 
indebtedness  assumed  or  incurred  in  suppressing  Modoc  Indian  hostilities  during  the  Modoc 
Indian  war,  and  in  defending  that  State  from  invasion  by  said  Indians  during  the  years 
1872  and  1873,  which  were  submitted  to  and  passed  upon,  by  either  approval  or  rejection, 
by  Inspector-Oeneral  James  A.  Hardie,  United  States  Army),  Said  accounts  for  and  on 
behalf  of  said  State  of  Texas  shall  be  confined  to  claims  arising  since  the  twentieth  day  of 
October,  1865,  and  shall  include  the  necessary  expenses  of  defense  against  Mexican  raids 
or  invasions,  as  well  as  those  for  defense  against  Indian  hostilities,  and  for  and  on  behalf 
Of  said  Territories  of  Idaho  and  Washington  for  said  claims  arising  in  the  years  1877  and 

Then  it  makes  sundry  limitations.  That  Act  is  four  years  old  and 
upward,  and  I  should  like  to  ask  the  Chairman  of  the  committee  how  much 
money  has  been  appropriated  already  for  these  examinations  and  reports. 

Mr.  Allison.  This  is  the  first  appropriation,  I  will  say  to  the  Senator 
from  Vermont,  for  this  purpose,  but  it  has  been  estimated  for  by  every  Sec- 
retary of  War  since  the  passage  of  this  Act.  Secretary  Lincoln  estimated 
$25,000,  and  the  present  Secretary  estimated  $25,000,  and  wrote  to  the 
committee  a  very  urgent  letter  respecting  it,  and  stated  that  these  claims 
were  being  pressed.  They  are  on  file  in  the  War  Department,  and  they 
are  being  pressed  by  the  States  interested,  and  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
that  he  shall  have  a  small  fund — he  estimated  for  a  fund  of  $25,000 — to 
enable  him  to  make  a  critical  and  careful  examination  of  these  claims. 
The  Committee  on  Appropriations  inserted  $7,500,  and  have  instructed  me 


474 

since  that  to  move  to  increase  it  to  $10,000.     I  therefore  move  that  amend- 
ment to  the  amendment  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Edmunds.     It  is  a  very  dangerous  law. 

Mr.  Alhson.     So  it  is,  but  it  is  there. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  I  think  we  might  well  hold  up  a  little  while  and  see 
about  that. 

Mr.  Allison.  It  is  very  difficult  to  hold  up  without  repealing  the  law. 
The  Committee  on  Appropriations  on  examination  of  the  question  felt  that 
it  was  important  to  make  some  provision  in  order  to  give  the  Secretary  of 
War  an  opportunity  to  make  a  careful  investigation  of  these  claims. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  It  is  no  more  difficult  to  hold  up  than  it  has  been  for 
four  years  last  past,  I  suppose.  There  is  no  gravitation  that  increases  the 
rapidity  of  the  pressure. 

Mr.  Allison.  But  the  Secretary  of  War  has  already  made  some  examina- 
tions. The  State  of  Kansas  has  had  all  her  claims  presented,  examined, 
and  paid. 

Mr.  Edmunds.     Out  of  what  fund  was  the  examination  made? 

Mr.  Allison.     It  was  made  without  any  additional  appropriation. 

Mr.  Edmunds.     Why  can  it  not  be  done  again? 

Mr.  Allison.  There  was  no  appropriation  made  for  the  examination  of 
those  claims;  but  there  has  been  one  appropriation  made  for  the  payment 
of  the  Kansas  claims,  an  appropriation  of  $230,000. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  Do  you  mean  to  say  $230,000  has  been  spent  in  the 
examination  already? 

Mr.  Allison.  No;  I  say  claims  have  been  examined  to  the  extent  of 
$230,000  of  the  State  of  Kansas  and  have  been  paid  by  appropriations 
under  that  law.  The  claims  of  the  State  of  Texas  I  think  are  much  larger 
than  the  claims  of  the  State  of  Kansas,  and  the  claims  of  the  other  States 
and  Territories  are  on  file  in  the  War  Department,  and  the  Secretaryof 
War  desires  to  make  a  careful  and  critical  examination  of  certain  of  these 
claims,  and  he  has  no  fund  with  which  to  make  that  examination.  This 
appropriation  is  for  that  purpose. 

The  President  pro  tempore.  The  question  is  on  agreeing  to  the  amend- 
ment of  the  Senator  from  Iowa  [Mr.  Allison]  to  the  amendment  of  the 
Committee  on  Appropriations. 

Mr.  Dolph.  I  desire  to  say  in  regard  to  this  law  that  although  it  was 
passed  before  I  became  a  member  of  this  body  I  have  examined  it  since, 
and  the  class  of  claims  payment  of  which  is  provided  for  under  the  Act 
referred  to  by  the  Senator  from  Vermont  is  a  class  of  claims  that  has  always 
been  paid  by  the  General  Government.  The  States  have  always  been 
reimbursed  for  expenses  in  defending  themselves  against  Indian  hostilities 
and  against  invasions.  There  is  not  a  precedent  to  the  contrary  since  the 
Constitution  was  formed. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  Does  the  Senator  mean  to  say  that  was  the  breadth  of 
this  Act  of  1882. 

Mr.  Dolph.  Yes,  sir,  and  some  Acts  have  gone  further.  I  took  occasion" 
in  making  a  report  on  the  claim  of  the  State  of  New  York  to  cite  all  the 
Acts  that  had  ever  been  passed,  and  many  of  the  reports  that  had  been 
made  on  the  claims  of  States — a  report  I  made  at  the  last  session  of  Con- 
gress, in  which  I  examined  the  matter  thoroughly. 

I  say  these  are  a  class  of  claims  that  have  always  been  paid  to  the  States. 
The  claims  of  Kansas  have  been  examined  and  reported  upon  and  paid^ 
appropriations  having  been  made  for  them.  Now  the  Secretary  of  War 
reports  that  notwithstanding  he  details  officers  of  the  army  to  make  these 
examinations  and  audit  these  claims,  it  requires  money  to  pay  the  expense 


475 

of  office  rent,  I  think,  and  clerk  hire  and  some  other  incidental  expenses 
in  the  examination  of  the  claims;  and  he  has  asked,  as  the  preceding  Sec- 
retary of  War,  his  predecessor,  asked,  $25,000  for  that  purpose. 

The  senior  Senator  from  Texas  [Mr.  Maxe}'']  introduced  a  bill  at  the 
present  session,  and  I  am  not  sure  but  it  passed  the  Senate,  making  an 
appropriation  of  $25,000  for  that  purpose.  I  am  only  sorry  that  he  is  not 
in  his  seat. 

Mr.  Plumb.  That  bill  is  in  the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  and  has 
not  been  passed. 

Mr.  Dolph.     I  know  that  it  has  not  passed  the  House. 

Mr.  Allison.  It  has  not  passed  the  Senate.  It  was  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations. 

Mr.  Dolph.  This  is  a  small  sum,  but  it  will  enable  the  work  to  be  car- 
ried on.  The  claims  have  been  presented,  but  they  can  not  be  examined 
without  an  appropriation.     I  am  certain  the  appropriation  is  a  proper  one. 

Mr.  Plumb.  There  can  not  be  any  doubt  in  my  judgment  that  the  Gov- 
ernment is  committed  not  by  this  law,  but  by  precedents  that  run  clear 
back  through  the  history  of  all  the  States  in  the  Union,  including  the  State 
of  Vermont,  the  State  of  New  York,  and  all  the  older  States  that  had  to  do 
with  the  question  of  defense  against  Indians  and  other  public  enemies, 
except  it  may  be  in  regard  to  the  payment  for  horses.  This  law  is  certainly 
no  broader  than  the  bills  that  have  been  passed  from  time  to  time  for  the 
allowance  of  claims  of  the  various  States. 

I  had  occasion  many  years  ago,  when  I  first  introduced  a  bill  on  this 
subject,  and  which  was  finally  incorporated  in  the  law  referred  to,  to  run 
that  question  down  very  thoroughly,  and  I  was  very  much  surprised  to 
find  the  number  of  precedents  there  were  for  action  of  that  kind  at  a  very 
early  date,  the  Senator  from  Oregon  says  extending  through  the  entire 
history  of  the  Republic.  It  is  true  also,  as  stated  by  the  Senator  from 
Iowa,  that  the  State  of  Kansas  has  gotten  its  pay,  or  the  largest  portion  of 
it,  under  this  law,  amounting  to  about  $230,000.  • 

I  believe  that  the  appropriation  ought  to  be  made.  While  I  shall  not 
at  all  object  to  making  it  $10,000 — and  I  think  possibly  that  under  the  cir- 
cumstances that  may  be  the  wiser  thing  to  do — I  still  have  a  conviction, 
growing  out  of  an  experience  which  I  will  not  here  narrate,  that  it  is  a 
much  larger  sum  than  would  be  really  necessary,  if  we  could  only  apply 
to  the  administration  of  the  War  Department  in  this  matter  the  rules  that 
apply  in  the  transaction  of  ordinary  private  business. 

Mr.  Edmunds.     That  is  to  have  the  officers  work. 

Mr.  Plumb.  This  determination  will  be  arrived  at  upon  the  judgment 
of  army  officers  detailed  for  that  purpose ;  and  while  it  is  true  that  in  the 
paucity  of  room  which  exists  in  that  great  building,  which  has  already 
cost,  I  think,  about  $15,000,000,  there  is  not  space  there  to  assemble  a 
Board  of  three  officers  for  this  work;  the  only  thing  that  is  necessary  to  be 
done  is  to  rent  a  building  in  which  they  can  be  stored.  I  think  myself 
that  if  we  could  have  this  matter  done  as  it  ought  to  be  done,  a  thousand 
dollars  would  be  ample;  but  I  have  had  experience  enough  in  these  mat- 
ters to  know  that  a  thousand  dollars  does  not  amount  to  much  in  these 
cases,  and,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  am  entirely  willing  to  accede  to  the 
proposed  amendment  of  $10,000.  The  Secretary  wanted  $25,000,  and  as 
far  as  I  am  concerned  I  am  glad  to  get  ofi:'  at  $10,000.  The  experience 
that  I  have  had,  as  I  said,  indicates  that  that  is  outside  the  necessities  of 
the  situation. 

Mr.  Edmunds.  This  Act  of  1882  is  broader  than  Indian  hostilities.  It 
includes  invasions,  and  it  seems  to  imply  that  any  State  or  Territory  may, 


476 

on  its  own  account,  and  in  its  own  discretion,  proceed  to  resist  invasion, 
and  prepare  to  suppress  it,  and  to  suppress  Indian  hostilities,  and  come  to 
the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  to  be  reimbursed  for  whatever  it  has 
expended  on  its  own  account,  and  in  its  own  way,  and  in  its  own  discre- 
tion, for  such  purposes. 

I  was  under  the  impression — I  do  not  remember  this  law;  I  was  not  in 
the  City  of  Washington  at  the  time  the  Act  passed — I  was  under  the  im- 
pression that  it  was  the  mission  of  the  United  States  itself,  as  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  whole  people  for  the  whole  people,  to  repress  Indian  hostilities, 
and  to  repress  and  prevent  invasions,  and  to  resist  invasions,  and  that  it 
must  be  a  very  rare,  and  urgent,  and  extreme  case,  indeed,  in  which  a 
State  or  Territory  would  be  justified  in  resorting  to  military  force  to  do 
either  of  these  things.  That  is  a  case  extreme  and  sudden  as  where  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  the  Commander-in-Chief  of  all  its  armies 
and  all  its  militia,  had  not  time  in  the  emergency  to  act  and  to  bring  the 
force  of  the  Government  of  the  whole  people  to  bear  for  the  objects  named 
in  this  law. 

It  will  be  an  agreeable  surprise  to  the  taxpayers  of  the  State  of  Vermont, 
who  had  some  experience  of  this  kind  during  the  war  that  is  now  called 
the  confederate  war,  but  used  to  be  called  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  in  rais- 
ing troops  to  resist  confederate  attacks  from  the  friendly  and  allied  territory 
of  Canada.  We  had  never  gotten  up  to  the  idea — and  probably  my  peo- 
ple in  Vermont  never  observed  this  Act — that  the  expense  to  w^hich  the 
State  of  Vermont  went  in  putting  troops  on  the  border  when  the  confed- 
erate authorities,  as  they  were  called,  were  fomenting  invasions  from  that 
side  of  the  country,  as  they  had  under  the  laws  of  war  a  perfect  right  to 
do,  and  as  the  English,  favoring  their  side,  were  perfectly  willing  they 
should  do,  were  to  be  paid  for  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States. 

It  will  be  rather  an  agreeable  surprise  to  us  that  we  are  to  get  one  or  two 
hundred  thousand  dollars  on  the  theory  of  this  Act  and  on  this  investiga- 
tion; and  that  rather  leads  me  from  a  local  motive  to  be  in  favor  of  this 
investigation;  but  I  am  very  much  afraid  (to  come  back  to  the  philosophy 
and  propriety  of  the  thing)  that  this  Act  of  1882  goes  altogether  too  far, 
and  seems  to  be  a  continuing  authority  to  the  States  and  to  the  Territories 
to  go  on  their  own  discretion,  and  in  their  own  way,  and  do  whatever  they 
like,  or  think  fit  and  proper,  to  resist  any  invasion  that  they  may  suspect 
that  is  about  to  be  made,  or  any  hostilities  that  are  about  to  break  out.  I 
do  not  think  it  is  a  very  safe  Act. 

Mr.  Cockrell.  Mr.  President,  I  am  very  sorry  indeed  that  the  aspira- 
tions of  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Vermont  prevent  him  from  speak- 
ing of  the  "  war  of  the  rebellion,"  and  that  he  has  got  to  be  so  par- 
ticular, fearing  that  he  may  offend  the  sensibilities  of  those  engaged  in 
that  war,  that  he  calls  it  the  war  of  the  confederacy.  I  hope  the  Senator 
will  not  indulge  in  that  expression  any  more.  Call  it  by  its  right  name — 
the  war  of  the  rebellion. 

Mr.  President,  I  drew  the  bill  that  is  under  discussion.  Sundry  bills  on 
this  question  were  referred  to  me  in  the  Committee  on  Military  Aff"airs, 
and  I  prepared  this  bill  to  meet  all  the  cases,  and  I  challenge  the  Senator 
from  Vermont,  or  any  other  Senator,  to  show  from  1789  down  to  this  time 
one  solitary  law  as  well  guarded,  as  carefully  guarded,  as  closely  guarded 
as  this  law  is.  I  examined  every  solitary  Act  on  this  question;  I  exam- 
ined all  the  appropriations  that  had  been  made,  and  I  put  every  provision 
in  this  bill  that  had  ever  been  put  in  any  other  bill  in  covering  the  expendi- 
tures to  be  made  under  it. 

Read  Section  2: 


477 

Sec.  2.  That  no  higher  rate  shall  be  allowed  for  the  services  of  said  forces,  and  for  sup- 
plies, transportation,  and  other  proper  expenses,  than  was  allowed  and  paid  by  the  United 
States  for  similar  services  in  the  same  grade  and  for  the  same  time  in  the  United  States 
Army  serving  in  said  States  and  Territories,  and  for  similar  supplies,  transportation,  and 
other  proper  expenses  during  the  same  time  furnished  the  United  States  Army  in  the 
same  country. 

That  did  not  give  the  States  and  Territories  any  opportunity  of  making 
any  change  over  and  above  what  the  Army  of  the  United  States  was  at 
that  very  time  paying  in  that  region  of  country.     Now  read  further: 

And  no  allowance  shall  be  made  for  services  of  such  forces  except  for  the  time  during 
which  they  were  engaged  in  active  service  in  the  field;  and  no  allowance  shall  be  made 
for  the  services  of  any  person  in  more  than  one  capacity  at  the  same  time,  or  for  any 
expenditures  for  which  the  Secretary  of  War  shall  decide  there  was  no  necessity  at  the 
time  and  under  all  the  circumstances. 

More  complete  guards  could  not  be  put  around  any  provision. 

Sec.  3.  That  to  enable  the  said  officers  to  make  the  examination  and  investigation 
herein  authorized,  the  Governors  of  the  said  States  and  Territories,  respectively,  or  their 
duly  authorized  agents,  shall  file  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  abstracts  and  state- 
ments of  all  such  claims  by  said  States  and  Territories,  showing  the  amounts  of  such 
expenditures  and  indebtedness,  and  the  purposes  for  which  they  were  made,  and  accom- 
panied with  proper  vouchers  and  evidence. 

Sec  4.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall,  at  the  earliest  practicable  time,  report 
to  Congress  for  final  action  the  results  of  such  examination  and  investigation,  and  the 
amount  or  amounts  found  to  have  been  properly  expended  for  the  purposes  aforesaid; 
provided,  that  whenever  the  examination  of  the  accounts  of  any  State  or  Territory  here- 
inbefore mentioned  shall  have  been  completed,  the  same  shall  be  separately  reported  to 
Congress,  without  reference  to  the  final  examination  of  the  accounts  of  any  other  State 
or  Territory. 

This  law  provided  that  the  Governors  of  the  States  and  Territories 
should  file  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  an  itemized  account  of  every 
claim  for  which  they  asked  reimbursement,  accompanied  by  vouchers  and 
receipts  for  the  sum.  This  was  to  be  done  before  any  action  was  taken. 
Then  the  officers  of  the  army,  the  regular  officers,  and  the  officers  of  the 
Treasury  Department,  were  to  examine  all  these  accounts,  and  the  closest 
scrutiny  was  required  to  be  given.  They  were  prohibited  from  allowing 
these  States  and  Territories  any  more  than  the  regular  army  acting  in  its 
ordinary  capacity  was  allowing  at  the  same  time  and  place,  and  they  were 
not  allowed  to  pay  these  volunteer  troops  for  any  time  except  when  they 
were  in  active  service  in  the  field  in  pursuit  of  Indians. 

It  is  well  known  to  every  Senator  here  that  in  almost  all  the  Western 
States  and  Territories  there  have  been  Indian  outbreaks  where  the  Indians 
would  have  completed  their  raid  and  their  depredations  before  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  could  have  gotten  a  regular  soldier  within  one 
hundred  miles  of  the  place  unless  he  was  stationed  there.  Look  at  the 
raid  that  was  made  through  Kansas.  Its  traces  remain  there,  the  remains 
of  what  was  done  even  before  the  Governor  of  the  State  could  get  the  militia 
out  to  meet  the  raid.  So  it  was  in  Washington  Territory,  so  it  was  in  Ore- 
gon, and  so  it  was  in  other  places. 

This  law  was  provided  to  adjust  all  these.  Each  State  or  Territory  was 
coming  in  with  a  separate  bill,  and  these  were  all  taken  together,  and  this 
bill  was  provided  for  that  purpose.  In  many  other  cases  where  bills  have 
been  passed,  the  auditing  by  the  Treasury  and  War  Department  was  an 
absolute  settlement  of  the  claims,  and  they  were  paid;  but  in  this  case 
under  this  law,  even  after  the  Secretary  of  War  and  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  have  both  adjudged  the  claims  to  be  just,  they  cannot  pay  a  dol- 
lar of  them.     They  simply  examine  them  and  then  report  them  back  to 


478 

Congress,  and  it  is  then  in  the  power  of  Congress  to  do  just  what  it  pleases — 
appropriate  or  not. 

There  has  only  been  one  State  whose  claims  have  been  entirely  complete 
and  reported  to  Congress,  and  that  was  the  State  of  Kansas;  the  accounts 
of  that  State  were  in  a  nearer  state  of  completion  than  any  other,  and 
probably  (unless  possibly  Texas  may  be  as  large)  Kansas  had  the  largest 
claims  of  any  State  or  Territory.  There  were  for  years  separate  bills  pend- 
ing here,  and  they  had  been  reported  favorably,  and  had  passed  the  Sen- 
ate once,  I  believe,  for  the  reimbursement  of  Kansas  alone,  appropriating 
a  certain  amount  of  money.  At  the  Congress  of  1882,  all  these  bills  were 
put  together,  and  this  law  was  prepared  and  was  passed.  There  was  a 
report  made  in  the  case,  quite  a  lengthy  report,  giving  the  whole  history 
of  it. 

The  bill  was  prepared  and  reported,  and,  after  full  investigation,  became 
a  law,  and  I  assure  the  Senator  from  Vermont  that  if  that  law  is  followed 
there  can  be  no  swindling  under  it,  there  can  be  no  advantage  taken.  The 
Governors  have  to  file  the  accounts,  itemized,  with  the  vouchers  and  the 
receipts.  Then  the  Department  investigates  them,  and  by  the  rules  there 
they  report  what  they  think  ovTght  to  be  allowed,  and  then  Congress  deter- 
mine whether  they  will  pay  a  dollar  or  not. 

Mr.  Hawley.  t  think  the  question  before  the  Senate  is  not  upon  the 
merits  of  that  statute,  but  the  question  is  whether  the  United  States  will 
examine  these  papers  with  a  view  of  either  refusing  or  paying  these  claims. 
I  have  not  observed  that  claims  diminish  with  age.  The  evidence  de- 
creases but  the  claim  has  usually  grown. 

One  other  observation  I  wish  to  make  to  my  friend,  the  Senator  from 
Vermont.  He  intimated  that  if  the  statute  had  been  known  to  be  in  force 
it  was  possible  Vermont  might  have  gained  some  benefit  from  this  appro- 
priation for  repelling  invasions  from  Canada  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion. 
This  is  a  little  mistake.  He  will  find  himself  without  any  benefit  under 
the  Act,  because  there  was  a  payment  made  to  the  State  of  Vermont  for 
expenses  incurred  in  protection  against  invasions  from  Canada  in  1864,  by 
the  Act  of  June  26,  1866,  amounting  to  $16,463  81,  and  the  amount  has 
been  paid. 

Mr.  Edmunds.     That  amount  has  been  paid,  but  the  others  have  not. 

The  President  pro  tempore.  The  question  is  on  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  Senator  from  Iowa  to  the  amendment  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Hawley.  I  still  have  the  floor.  I  was  only  going  to  add  in  response 
to  the  remark  of  the  Senator  from  Vermont  that  that  was  all  Vermont 
claimed  on  the  fourth  of  September,  1867,  apparently. 

Mr.  Edmunds.     We  had  not  the  Act  of  1882  in  force  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Hawley.  No;  the  Act  of  1882  was  not  in  force,  but  the  Senator 
referred  to  expenses  incurred  by  Vermont  in  attempting  to  protect  herself 
against  invasions  from  Canada  during  the  rebellion,  and  if  Vermont  failed 
to  present  her  bill  in  1867  when  she  had  an  opportunity  under  a  law  for 
that,  she  is  not  a  good  Yankee  State. 

Mr.  Edmunds.     Probably  not  a  law  to  this  effect  unhappily  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Maxey.  I  shall  not  go  over  the  ground  occupied  by  the  Senator  from 
Missouri.  I  was  myself  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs 
at  the  time  the  Act  of  1882  was  prepared  by  that  committee,  presented  to 
the  Senate,  passed  through  the  Senate  without,  as  far  as  I  remember,  a 
single  amendment  to  it,  went  to  the  House,  passed  the  House,  and  became 
a  law.  There  were  various  States  which  had  claims,  and  each  of  those 
States  had  presented  a  separate  bill,  Kansas,  Nevada,  Colorado,  Oregon, 
Texas,  and  by  amendments  placed  on  the  bill  after  it  came  to  the  Senate, 


479 

on  the  motion  of  the  late  Senator  from  CaHfornia,  Mr.  Miller,  California 
was  added.  There  was  also  the  Territory  of  Washington  and  there  were 
some  other  Territories  perhaps  included.  The  Committee  on  Military- 
Affairs  took  all  those  bills  and  directed  a  committee  bill  to  be  prepared, 
which  was  done  by  the  Senator  from  Missouri,  and  that  bill  passed  as  I  have 
stated. 

Now,  the  question  is,  shall  the  law  be  carried  out?  After  the  passage  of 
this  bill  in  1882,  Mr.  Lincoln  then  being  Secretary  of  War,  I  went  to  the 
War  Department  and  had  a  conversation  with  him.  He  stated  to  me  that 
there  was  a  necessity  for  an  appropriation  to  enable  him  to  carry  out  this 
law,  and  after  conferring  with  him  in  regard  to  it  he  sent  a  special  estimate 
to  the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  which  is  on  file  in  the  papers  of  that 
committee.  When  I  returned  to  the  Senate  from  the  War  Department  I 
prepared  an  amendment  to  the  appropriation  bill  then  pending,  sent  it  to 
the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  and  they  allowed  the  appropriation, 
which  was  $25,000.  It  came  to  the  Senate  and  passed  the  Senate.  No 
one  dissented.     It  was  lost  in  some  way  in  conference. 

During  the  present  session  of  Congress  I  had  another  conversation  with 
the  present  Secretary  of  War,  Mr.  Endicott,  on  the  same  subject.  He  took 
the  same  view  as  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  this  appropriation  was  necessary  in  order 
to  the  faithful  execution  of  the  law.  He  took  the  same  course  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  had  taken.  I  proposed  the  amendment  to  the  Committee  on 
Appropriations.  That  committee  took  it  up.  That  was  also  $25,000,  but 
the  committee  reported  only  $7,500,  which,  in  my  judgment,  is  not  enough 
to  put  the  law  in  operation,  according  to  the  views  of  the  Secretary  of  War; 
and  the  amount  is  now  proposed  to  be  increased  to  $10,000. 

A  word  now  on  the  subject  of  precedents.  It  was  not  necessary  for  the 
Senator  from  Connecticut  to  have  stopped  at  the  precedent  for  Vermont. 
There  is  a  precedent  for  Minnesota  and  many  other  States,  all  of  which 
were  examined  by  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  before  this  bill  was 
presented  from  that  committee  to  the  Senate.  But  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion whatever,  where  a  State  honestly  and  in  good  faith  has  expended 
money  to  raise  forces  to  defend  her  own  people  when  there  are  not  sufficient 
troops  at  the  command  of  the  Federal  Government  to  give  them  protection, 
that  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of  the  State  to  provide  for  the  defense  of  her 
citizens  from  the  scalping-knife  of  the  Indian  or  from  the  raids  of  the  Mex- 
ican. 

That  there  were  raids  across  the  Rio  Grande  during  a  number  of  years 
into  Texas,  accompanied  by  robbery,  arson,  and  every  crime  known  to  the 
law,  is  a  part  and  parcel  of  the  history  of  this  country.  That  continued 
for  years,  and  the  State  of  Texas  as  a  matter  of  duty  to  her  own  citizens 
did  organize  forces  and  send  them  to  the  frontier  to  protect  her  citizens. 
Subsequently  the  United  States  Government  did  send  troops  there  in  suffi- 
cient numbers  to  furnish  defense,  and  I  was  informed  by  the  late  distin- 
guished General  of  the  Army,  the  brother  of  the  present  distinguished  pre- 
siding officer  of  the  Senate,  that  he  had  placed  on  the  frontier  of  Texas  a 
quarter  of  the  effective  force  of  the  entire  army.  It  was  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  the  defense  of  that  frontier  for  one  thousand  two  hundred  miles, 
and  a  large  portion  of  that  a  wilderness,  to  place  one  fourth  of  the  army 
there.  My  honored  colleague  [Mr.  Coke]  was  for  a  portion  of  that  time 
Governor  of  the  State,  and  as  a  matter  of  duty  he  called  out  forces  and 
did  defend  the  frontier. 

A  State  has  no  power  to  raise  and  support  armies.  It  is  the  duty  of  the 
Federal  Government  to  provide  for  the  common  defense,  and,  ex  necessitate 
rei,  when  the  duty  is  temporarily  devolved  on  the  States  to  raise  troops,  it 


480 

is  the  business  of  the  Government,  who  ought  to  exercise  that  duty,  to 
refund  the  money  thus  paid  by  the  State  for  the  common  defense. 

So,  Mr.  President,  the  attack  on  this  appropriation  goes  further  than  that. 
It  is  an  attack  on  the  majesty  of  the  law.  The  law  is  in  force  on  the  statute 
book,  and  the  proper  officer,  the  Secretary  of  War,  declares  that  he  can  not 
execute  that  law  without  the  aid  of  this  appropriation;  and  the  Appropri- 
ation Committee  has  done  its  duty  when  it  comes  forward  with  the  neces- 
sary appropriation  to  enable  the  Secretary  of  War  to  discharge  that  duty. 
Of  all  the  States  which  were  embraced  in  that  law,  the  State  of  Kansas 
and  that  only  has  received  the  amount  to  which  she  was  justly  entitled. 

That  claim  went  through  the  War  Department  and  went  through  the 
Treasury  Department.  They  came  to  Congress  and  the  necessary  appro- 
priation was  made.  Why  make  fish  of  one  and  flesh  of  another?  Why, 
having  paid  that  claim,  lock  and  bar  and  bolt  the  door  and  say  no  other 
State  shall  be  indemnified?  That  will  not  do.  It  is  not  just  and  it  is  not 
right  that  the  appropriation  should  be  refused. 

If  these  claims  are  not  just,  you  have  three  distinct  ways  of  closing  the 
matter  out,  I  say  to  the  Senator  from  Vermont.  First,  if  the  claims  are  not 
just  and  meritorious,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  War  so  to  say.  Sec- 
ond, the  claims  are  visaed  by  the  Secretary  of  War  before  they  are  sub- 
mitted here  to  Congress,  and  after  all  that  is  done  the  claims  are  presented 
here  to  this  body;  and  it  is  for  Congress  after  full  investigation  to  determine 
whether  or  not  these  claims  shall  be  paid. 

De  Lolme  said  that  in  a  certain  difficulty  between  the  executive  and  the 
legislative  department  in  England  the  executive  could  supply  a  ship  of 
war  but  Parliament  could  leave  the  ship  stranded;  in  other  words,  he  would 
not  make  the  necessary  appropriation  to  carry  out  the  law  of  the  land. 
That  is  a  dangerous  method  of  thwarting  law,  and  there  is  no  need  for  it. 
If  these  claims  are  honest  we  have  here  the  means  of  determining  the  fact, 
and  if  they  are  honest  and  clear  we  should  pay  them.  If  they  are  not  hon- 
est claims  then  Congress  can  so  say  and  payment  be  disallowed ;  but  in  the 
meantime  let  the  law  be  carried  out,  furnish  the  officers  of  the  Government 
the  means  of  examining  and  auditing  these  claims  and  presenting  them  in 
a  legal  and  intelligent  form  to  Congress  so  that  we  may  act  upon  them  and 
determine  whether  or  not  they  should  be  allowed. 

I  hope  the  amount  will  be  raised  to  $10,000.  I  personally  believe  it  is 
all  we  can  get,  but  I  do  not  know  that  the  Secretary  of  War  can  carry  out 
the  Act  with  that,  but  he  can  start  with  that. 

My  State  is  no  more  interested  in  this  matter  than  the  State  of  Ohio,  the 
State  of  Nevada,  the  State  of  California,  the  State  of  Colorado,  and  the  Ter- 
ritories which  have  no  representation  in  this  body;  but,  sir,  in  the  name  of 
justice  and  fair  dealing  and  right  between  man  and  man  it  is  right  that 
these  States  if  they  have  a  claim  should  have  a  fair  and  just  way  of  pre- 
senting and  asserting  that  claim,  and  if  the  claims  are  honest  Congress 
should  allow  them. 

The  President  pro  tempore.  The  question  is  on  agreeing  to  the  amend- 
ment of  the  Senator  from  Iowa  to  the  amendment  of  the  Committee  on 
Appropriations. 

The  amendment  to  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  amendment  as  amended  was  agreed  to. 


481 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  session.    S.  656.    Calendar  No.,  1000.    Report  No.  984. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     December  13,  1883. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Nevada,  asked  and,  by  unanimous  consent,  obtained  leave 
to  bring  in  the  following  bill;  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Claims. 

January  13,  1885 — Reported  by  Mr.  Dolph  with  amendments,  viz.:  Omit 
the  parts  struck  through  and  insert  the  parts  printed  in  italics. 

A   BILL 

For  the  benefit  of  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada  (and  Nevada 

when  a  Territory). 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  whenever  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  and  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  adjusting  the  claims  of  the 
States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory) 
arising  under  the  Acts  of  Congress  approved  July  twenty-seventh,  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-one,  and  June  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and 
eighty-two  (United  States  Statutes,  volume  twelve,  page  two  hundred  and 
seventy-six,  and  volume  twenty-two,  page  one  hundred  and  eleven),  shall 
find  that  any  original  paper  relating  to  the  claims  of  said  States  as  pro- 
vided for  in  said  Acts  shall  have  been  lost,  destroyed,  or  missing,  upon 
proof  thereof  a  copy^  thereof,  and  copies  of  all  documents  and  papers  relating 
thereto,  may  be  certified  to  by  the  proper  State  officers  of  such  State  having 
custody  of  such  papers,  under  their  seals  of  office;  and  such  evidence,  and 
all  other  competent  secondary  evidence,  when  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  or  Secretary  of  War,  shall  be  received  by  them  in  lieu  of  such 
lost  original  paper,  and  used  in  evidence  in  the  adjustment  of  their  said 
claims  in  all  respects  as  said  original. 


Forty-eighth  Congress,  second  session.    Senate.    Report  No.  984. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  January  13,  1885 — Ordered  to  be 
printed. 

Mr.  Dolph,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  S.  656.] 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (S.  656)  for 
the  benefit  of  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada,  and  Nevada 
when  a  Territory,  have  duly  examined  the  same,  and  report  the  same  back 
to  the  Senate  with  amendments. 

By  the  Act  of  Congress  entitled  "An  Act  to  indemnify  the  States  for 
expenses  incurred  by  them  in  defense  of  the  United  States,"  approved  July 
27,  1861,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  authorized  and  directed  "  to 
pay  to  the  Governor  of  any  State,  or  to  his  duly  authorized  agents,  the 
costs,  charges,  and  expenses  proi)erly  incurred  by  such  State  for  enrolhng, 

31^^ 


482 

subsisting,  clothing,  'supplying,  arming,  equipping,  paying,  and  transport- 
ing its  troops  employed  in  aiding  to  suppress  the  present  insurrection 
against  the  United  States,  to  be  settled  upon  proper  vouchers  to  be  filed 
and  passed  upon  by  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury." 

By  the  first  section  of  an  Act  of  Congress  approved  June  27,  1882,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  authorized  and  directed,  with  the  aid  and 
assistance  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  to  cause  to  be  examined  and  investi- 
gated all  the  claims  of  the  States  of  Texas,  Colorado,  Oregon,  Nebraska, 
California,  and  Nevada,  and  the  Territories  of  Washington  and  Idaho 
against  the  United  States  for  money  alleged  to  have  been  expended,  and 
for  indebtedness  alleged  to  have  been  assumed,  by  said  States  and  Terri- 
tories in  organizing,  arming,  equipping,  supplying  clothing,  subsistence, 
transporting,  and  paying  the  volunteer  and  military  forces  of  said  States 
and  Territories  called  into  active  service  by  the  proper  authorities  thereof 
between  the  fifteenth  day  of  April,  1861,  and  the  date  of  said  Act,  to  repel 
invasion  and  Indian  hostilities  in  said  States  and  Territories,  and  upon 
their  borders,  including  all  proper  expenses  necessarily  incurred  by  said 
States  and  Territories  on  account  of  said  forces  having  been  so  called  into 
active  service,  and  all  proper  claims  paid  or  assumed  by  said  States  and 
Territories  for  horses  and  equipments  actually  lost  by  said  forces  in  the 
line  of  duty  in  active  service,  excepting  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Oregon 
for  expenditures  in  suppressing  the  Modoc  Indian  hostilities,  the  payment 
for  which  had  already  been  provided  for  by  Act  of  Congress. 

By  the  second  section  of  said  Act  it  was  provided  that  no  higher  rate  for 
supplies,  transportation,  and  other  proper  expenses  than  was  allowed  and 
paid  by  the  United  States  for  similar  services  in  the  same  grade  and  for 
the  same  time  in  the  United  States  Army  serving  in  said  States  and  Terri- 
tories, and  for  similar  supplies,  transportation,  and  other  proper  expenses 
during  the  same  time  furnished  the  United  States  Army  in  the  same 
country,  and  that  no  allowance  should  be  made  for  the  services  of  such 
forces  except  for  the  time  during  which  they  were  engaged  in  active  service 
in  the  field,  or  for  expenditures  for  which  the  Secretary  of  War  should 
decide  there  was  no  necessity  at  the  time  and  under  the  circumstances. 

The  first  section  of  the  bill  under  consideration  is  intended  to  authorize 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  adj  usting  the 
claims  of  the  said  States,  under  the  Acts  above  mentioned,  to  receive  sec- 
ondary evidence  of  the  contents  of  any  original  paper  relating  to  claims 
under  said  Acts  which  may  have  been  lost  or  destroyed.  When  amended, 
as  proposed  by  your  committee,  this  section  seems  to  be  unobjectionable. 

The  second  section  is  intended  to  authorize  the  accounting  officers  of  the 
Treasury,  in  adjusting  the  claims  of  said  States  under  said  Acts,  to  credit 
such  of  said  States  and  Territories  with  the  amount  of  money  actually 
expended  by  them  from  their  respective  Treasuries,  on  account  of  extra 
pay,  bounty,  and  relief  to  troops  called  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States. 

Large  amounts  were  paid  by  States  and  municipal  corporations  for  bounty 
and  relief  to  volunteers  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion. 

Your  committee  has  been  unable  to  find  that  the  United  States  has  yet 
assumed  or  paid  to  any  State  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  July  27, 
1861,  or  any  other  Act,  the  amounts  so  paid  by  such  State  for  bounty  or 
relief,  and  is  unwilling,  at  this  time,  to  establish  a  precedent  for  such  pay- 
ment. 

Your  committee,  therefore,  report  the  bill  back  to  the  Senate,  and  recom- 
mend that  when  the  amendments  proposed  by  the  committee  are  made  to 
the  bill,  it  do  pass. 


483 
EXHIBIT  No.  7. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  71.    Report  No.  572. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.  February  4,  1886 — Read  twice,  and 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary. 

February  17,  1886 — Reported  with  amendments,  referred  to  the  House 
Calendar,  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  Omit  the  parts  struck  through,  and 
insert  the  part  printed  in  italics. 

AN  ACT 

For  the  benefit  of  the  States  of  Texas,  Colorado,  Oregon,  Nebraska]  California, 
Kansas,  and  Nevada,  and  the  Territories  of  Washington  and  Idaho,  and 
Nevada  when  a  Territory. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  whenever  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  and  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  adjusting  the  claims  of  the 
States  of  Texas,  Colorado,  Oregon,  Nebraska,  California,  Kansas,  and 
Nevada,  and  the  Territories  of  Washington  and  Idaho,  and  Nevada  when 
a  Territory,  arising  under  Acts  of  Congress  approved  July  twenty-seventh, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  and  June  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  eighty-two  (United  States  Statutes,  volume  twelve,  page  two 
hundred  and  seventy-six,  and  volume  twenty-two,  page  one  hundred 
and  eleven),  shall  find  that  any  original  paper  relating  to  the  claims  of 
said  States,  as  provided  for  in  said  Acts,  shall  have  been  lost,  destroyed, 
or  missing,  upon  proof  thereof,  a  copy  thereof  may  be  certified  by  the 
proper  State  officers  of  such  State  having  custody  of  such  papers,  under 
their  seals  of  office;  and  such  evidence,  when  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  or  Secretary  of  War,  shall  be  received  by  them  in  lieu  of  such 
lost  original  papers,  and  used  in  evidence  in  the  adjustment  of  their  said 
claims  in  all  respects  as  said  original. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  Secretary  of  War  is  hereby  authorized  to  detail  three 
army  officers  to  assist  him  in  examining  and  reporting  upon  the  claims  of  the 
States  and  Territory  named  in  the  Act  of  June  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  eighty-two,  chapter  two  hundred  and  forty-one  of  the  laws  of  the 
Forty-seventh  Congress;  and  such  officers,  before  entering  upon  said  duties, 
shall  take  and  subscribe  an  oath  that  they  will  carefully  examine  said  claims, 
and  that  they  will,  to  the  best  of  their  ability,  make  a  just  and  impartial 
statement  thereof,  as  required  by  said  Act. 

Passed  the  Senate  February  3,  1886. 
Attest' 

ANSON  G.  McCOOK,  Secretary. 

[Public— No.  168.] 

An  Act  for  the  benefit  of  the  States  of  Texas,  Colorado,  Oregon,  Nebraska,  Cal- 
ifornia, Kansas,  and  Nevada,  and  the  Territories  of  Washington  and  Idaho, 
and  Nevada  when  a  Territory. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  whenever  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  and  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  adjusting  the  claims  of  the 


484 

States  of  Texas,  Colorado,  Oregon,  Nebraska,  California,  Kansas,  and 
Nevada,  and  the  Territories  of  Washington  and  Idaho,  and  Nevada  when 
a  Territory,  arising  under  Acts  of  Congress  approved  July  twenty-seventh, 
eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-one,  and  June  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  eighty-two  (United  States  Statutes,  volume  twelve,  page  two 
hundred  and  seventy-six,  and  volume  twenty-two,  page  one  hundred  and 
eleven),  shall  find  that  any  original  paper  relating  to  the  claims  of  said 
States,  as  provided  for  in  said  Acts,  shall  have  been  lost,  destroyed,  or 
missing,  upon  proof  thereof  a  copy  of  such  paper  may  be  certified  by  the 
proper  officers  of  such  State  or  Territory,  under  their  seals  of  office;  or,  if 
such  copy  cannot  be  furnished,  any  other  competent  secondary  evidence  of 
the  contents  of  such  paper,  when  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
or  Secretary  of  War,  shall  be  received  by  them  in  lieu  of  such  lost  original 
papers,  and  used  in  evidence  in  the  adjustment  of  their  said  claims  in  all 
respects  as  said  original. 

All  provisions  of  this  section  applicable  to  States  shall  be  equally  appli- 
cable to  the  Territories. 

Sec.  2.  The  Secretary  of  War  is  hereby  authorized  to  detail  three  army 
officers  to  assist  him  in  examining  and  reporting  upon  the  claims  of  the 
States  and  Territory  named  in  the  Acts  of  June  twenty-seventh,  eighteen 
hundred  and  eighty-two,  chapter  two  hundred  and  forty-one  of  the  laws  of 
the  Forty-seventh  Congress;  and  such  officers,  before  entering  upon  said 
duties,  shall  take  and  subscribe  an  oath  that  they  will  carefully  examine 
said  claims,  and  that  they  will,  to  the  best  of  their  ability,  make  a  just  and 
impartial  statement  thereof,  as  required  by  said  Act. 

Approved  August  4,  1886. 


EXHIBIT  No.  8. 

Special  Orders,  No.  232. 

Headquarters  of  the  Army,  Adjutant-General's  Office, 
Washington,  October  6,  1886. 

Extract. 
********** 

4.  Under  the  provisions  of  section  two  of  an  Act  of  Congress,  approved 
August  4,  1886,  entitled  "  An  Act  for  the  benefit  of  the  States  of  Texas, 
Colorado,  Oregon,  Nebraska,  California,  Kansas,  and  Nevada,  and  the  Ter- 
ritories of  Washington  and  Idaho,  and  Nevada  when  a  Territory,"  the 
following  named  officers  are,  by  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  detailed 
to  assist  him  in  examining  and  reporting  upon  the  claims  of  the  States  and 
Territory  named  in  the  Acts  of  June  27,  1882 : 

Major  James  Biddle,  Sixth  Cavalry. 

Major  Henry  J.  Farnsworth,  Inspector-General. 

Captain  Edward  Hunter,  First  Cavalry. 

The  officers  named  will  report  in  person  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  this 
city,  at  as  early  a  date  as  practicable.  The  travel  enjoined  is  necessary 
for  the  public  service. 

'fi  TV  ^I^  'jC  ^  *fc  TV  TV  't*  'T* 

By  command  of  Lieutenant-General  Sheridan. 

R.  C.  DRUM, 
[Official:]  Adjutant-General. 


485 

EXHIBIT  No.  9. 

Washington,  D.  C,  September  18,  1886. 
The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  deliver  you  herewith,  to  be  examined  under 
the  Act  of  June  27,  1882,  and  Acts  amendatory  thereof  and  supplemental 
thereto,  or  under  such  other  Acts  as  may  pertain  thereto,  the  claims  of  the 

*'  State  of  California ^^^  as  set  forth  in — 

Abstract  "A,"  aggregating $204,020  00 

Abstract  "B,"  aggregating 25,827  40 

Abstract  "C,"  aggregating .-. 53,682  69 

Abstract  "  D,"  aggregating .'.       74,550  90 

Abstract  "E,"  aggregating 11,945  50 

Abstract  "F,"  aggregating 24,260  00 

Abstract  "G,"  aggregating.. — 9,968  41 

Abstract  "H,"  aggregating 52,992  53 

Abstract  "  K,"  aggregating 46,231  15 

Abstracf'L,"  aggregating 3,253  45 

Abstract  "M,"  aggregating 14,249  36 

Abstract  "N,"  aggregating 23,313  91 

Abstract  "0,"  aggregating 30,984  51 

Abstract  "  P,"  first  volume $632,095  09 

Abstract  "P,"  second  volume 385,715  04 

Abstract  "P,"  third  volume 442,344  28 

\  4g0  154  41 

Abstract  "  Q,"  first  volume $158,750  00 

Abstract  "  Q,"  second  volume 123,930  00 

Abstract  "Q,"  third  volume 172,650  00 

Abstract  "  (^,"  fourth  volume. 222,960  00 

Abstract  "  Q,"  fifth  volume 224,899  50 

903,189  50 

Aggregating  a  grand  total  of  $2,938,623  72,  and  all  of  which  abstracts, 
in  twenty-one  bound  volumes,  are  now  also  herewith  delivered  to  you. 
Abstract  "  P  "  containing  three,  and  Abstract  "  Q"  containing  five  volumes. 

The  papers  are  contained  in  eight  boxes,  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Box  No.  1,  containing  the  papers  relating  to  Abstract  "A,"  with  vouchers 
from  No.  1  to  No.  203,  inclusive. 

Abstract  "  B,"  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  65,  inclusive. 

Abstract  "C,"  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  322,  inclusive. 

Abstract ''  D,"  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  98,  inclusive. 

Abstract  "  E,"  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  44,  inclusive. 

Abstract  "  F,"  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  6,  inclusive. 

Abstract  "  G,"  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  50,  inclusive. 

Abstract  "  H,"  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  326,  inclusive. 

Abstract  "  K,"  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  166,  inclusive. 

Abstract  "  L,"  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  34,  inclusive. 

Abstract  "M,"  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  124,  inclusive. 

Abstract  "  N,"  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  63,  inclusive 

Abstract  "  0,"  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  277,  inclusive. 

Box  No.  2,  containing  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  796,  inclusive,  relating 
to  Abstract  "  P." 

Box  No.  3,  containing  vouchers  from  No.  797  to  No.  8,408,  inclusive, 
relating  to  Abstract  "P." 

Box  No.  4,  containing  vouchers  from  No.  8,409  to  No.  11,859,  inclusive, 
relating  to  Abstract  "  P." 

Box  No.  5,  containing  vouchers  from  No.  1  to  No.  4,399,  inclusive,  relat- 
ing to  Abstract "  Q." 


486 

Box  No.  6,  containing  vouchers  from  No.  4,400  to  No.  9,919,  inclusive^ 
relating  to  Abstract  "  Q." 

Box  No.  7,  containing  vouchers  from  No.  9,920  to  No.  14,337,  inckisive, 
relating  to  Abstract  "  Q." 

Box  No.  8,  containing  vouchers  from  No.  14,338  to  No.  19,580,  inclusive, 
relating  to  Abstract  "  Q." 

Also  find  herewith  affidavit  that  no  portion  of  said  claim  has  been  here- 
tofore ever  paid  to  the  State  of  California  by  the  United  States,  or  by  any 
officer  thereof. 

As  these  claims  are  being  examined  from  time  to  time  by  either  the 
Treasury  or  War  Department,  I  respectfully  request  to  be  kept  fully 
informed  of  any  matter  that  may  be  wanting  therein,  so  that  I  may  supply 
the  same  upon  due  notice  thereof. 

Respectfully, 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  State  of  California. 

,   Washington,  D.  C,  1310  Connecticut  Avenue,  September  18,  1886. 

[Copy.] 

City  of  Washington,  County  of  Washington,  District  of  Columbia. 

Office  of  State  Agent  for  the  State  of  California,  | 
Washington  City,  D.  C,  September  18,  1886.  j 

John  Mullan,  on  first  being  duly  sworn,  says  that  he  is  now  the  State 
Agent  for  the  State  of  California,  temporarily  residing  in  the  City  of  Wash- 
ington, District  of  Columbia,  for  the  purpose,  among  other  things,  of  pre- 
senting to  the  proper  departments,  bureau  authorities,  and  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  the  various  claims  of  the  State  of  California  against  the 
United  States,  and  demanding  and  receiving  payment  therefor  from  the 
United  States  to  said  State;  that  he  has  read  the  several  abstracts,  to  wit, 
A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  G,  H,  K,  L,  M,  N,  O,  P,  and  Q,  and  also  the  several 
exhibits  and  vouchers  and  other  papers  thereunto  pertaining,  and  in  regard 
to  the  matter  of  California's  said  war  claims  against  the  United  States  and 
the  whole  thereof;  that  all  the  matters  therein  contained  (errors  and 
omissions  excepted)  are  true  of  his  own  knowledge,  except  as  to  those 
matters  therein  stated  upon  information  and  belief,  and  as  to  those  matters 
that  he  believes  the  same  to  be  true;  that  he,  on  oath,  declares  and  certifies 
that  the  foregoing  abstracts  clearly  set  forth  a  full,  true,  and  correct  state- 
ment of  the  claim  of  the  State  of  California  on  account  of  the  matters 
specifically  enumerated  in  said  abstracts,  and  as  the  same  existed  on  the 
seventeenth  day  of  September,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-six;  that  nO' 
part  or  portion  thereof  has  ever  heretofore  been  paid  to  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia by  the  United  States,  nor  by  any  officer  thereof,  and  that  the  amounts 
stated  in  said  abstracts  were  due  and  payable  by  the  United  States  to  the 
State  of  California  on  the  seventeenth  day  of  September,  eighteen  hundred 
and  eighty-six. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
State  Agent  for  California. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  eighteenth  day  of  September^ 
eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-six. 

JOHN  M.  LAWTON, 
Notary  Public,  District  of  Columbia. 


EXHIBITS 


OF 


CLAIM  FOR  INTEREST, 


EXHIBIT  No.  1. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  320. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     December  5,  1883. 

Mr.  Miller  of  California,  asked  and,  by  unanimous  consent,  obtained 
leave  to  bring  in  the  following  bill;  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Claims: 

A  BILL 

Authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  due  to  the  States  of  California,  Oregon, 
and  Nevada  {and  Nevada  when  a  Territory). 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  proper  accounting  officers 
of  the  Treasury  Department  be  and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed 
to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claims  of  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and 
Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory)  against  the  United  States,  for 
interest  upon  loans  or  moneys  borrowed  and  actually  expended  by  them  for 
the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States  during  the  late  war  for  suppressing 
insurrection  and  rebellion,  and  also  on  account  of  Indian  hostilities  in  said 
States  and  Territory. 

Sec.  2.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amounts  of  interest  as  aforesaid  due  to 
the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Terri- 
tory) ,  the  following  rules  shall  be  understood  as  applicable  to  and  governing 
the  cases,  to  wit: 

First — That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sums  which  California, 
Oregon,  and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory)  have  not  expended 
for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as  evidenced  by  the  amounts 
refunded  or  repaid,  or  to  be  repaid,  to  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada  (and 
Nevada  when  a  Territory)  by  the  United  States. 

Second — That  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sums  on  which  they  have 
not  paid  interest. 

Third — That  when  the  principal  or  any  part  of  it  has  been  paid  or  refunded 
by  the  United  States,  or  money  placed  in  the  hands  of  California,  Oregon, 
and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory)  for  that  purpose,  the  interest 
on  the  sum  or  sums  so  paid  or  refunded  shall  cease  and  not  be  considered 
as  chargeable  to  the  United  States  any  longer  than  up  to  the  time  of  the 
repayment  as  aforesaid. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  amounts  of  interest,  when  ascertained  as  aforesaid, 
shall  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 


EXHIBIT  No.  2. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  109.    Printers  No.,  109. 

In  the   House   of  Representatives.     December  10,  1883 — Read  twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 


490 

Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

Authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  due  to  the  States  of  California,  Oregon^ 
and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory). 

Be  it  enacted  hg  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  proper  accounting  officers 
of  the  Treasury  Department  be  and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and 
directed  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claims  of  the  States  of  California,  Ore- 
gon, and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory)  against  the  United 
States  for  interest  upon  loans  or  moneys  borrowed  and  actually  expended 
by  them  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States  during  the  late  war 
for  suppressing  insurrection  and  rebellion,  and  also  on  account  of  Indian 
hostilities  in  said  States  and  Territory. 

Sec.  2.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amounts  of  interest  as  aforesaid  due  to 
the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Terri- 
tory) the  following  rules  shall  be  understood  as  applicable  to  and  govern- 
ing the  cases,  namely: 

First — That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sums  which  Califor- 
nia, Oregon,  and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory)  have  not  expended 
for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as  evidenced  by  the  amounts 
refunded  or  repaid,  or  to  be  refunded  or  to  be  repaid,  to  California,  Oregon, 
and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory)  by  the  United  States. 

Second — That  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sums  on  which  they  have 
not  paid  interest. 

Third — That  when  the  principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  paid  or 
refunded  by  the  United  States,  or  money  placed  in  the  hands  of  Califor- 
nia, Oregon,  and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory)  for  that  purpose, 
the  interest  on  the  sum  or  sums  so  paid  or  refunded  shall  cease,  and  not 
be  considered  as  chargeable  to  the  United  States  any  longer  than  up  to 
the  time  of  the  repayment  as  aforesaid. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  amounts  of  interest,  when  ascertained  as  aforesaid, 
shall  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 


EXHIBIT  No.  3. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  2930.    Printer's  No.,  3037. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     January  8, 1884 — Read  twice,  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Oury  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  reimburse  the  States  and  Territories  for  interest  on  money  heretofore  used 
and  expended  by  them  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  proper  accounting 
officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  be  and  they  are  hereby  authorized 
and  directed  to  examine,  adjust,  and  settle  the  claims  of  the  several  States 


491 

and  Territories  for  interest  upon  loans  or  moneys  borrowed  and  heretofore 
actually  expended  by  said  States  and  Territories,  respectively,  in  the  sup- 
pression of  Indian  hostilities;  provided,  that  the  benefits  of  this  Act  shall 
not  extend  to  any  State  or  Territory  which  shall  not  have  presented  a 
claim  for  such  interest  at  the  expiration  of  one  year  from  the  date  of  the 
passage  of  this  Act. 

Sec.  2.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  due  to  any  State  or 
Territory,  as  aforesaid,  the  following  rules  shall  be  applicable  and  shall 
govern  the  case,  to  wit : 

First — That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  such  State 
or  Territory  has  not  heretofore  expended  in  the  suppression  of  Indian 
hostilities,  as  evidenced  by  the  amount  of  money  refunded  or  repaid,  or 
which  may  hereafter  be  refunded  or  repaid,  to  such  States  or  Territories 
which  have  heretofore  made  such  expenditures. 

Second — That  no  interest  shall  be  paid  to  any  State  or  Territory  on  any 
sum  on  which  said  State  or  Territory  shall  not  have  paid  or  lost  interest. 

Third — That  when  the  principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  paid  or 
refunded  by  the  United  States  to  any  such  State  or  Territory,  or  placed  in 
the  hands  of  such  State  or  Territory  for  that  purpose,  interest  on  the 
amount  of  the  sum  or  sums  so  paid  or  refunded  shall  cease,  and  not  be 
considered  as  chargeable  to  the  United  States  any  longer  than  up  to  the 
time  of  the  repayment  aforesaid. 

Fourth — That  interest  in  all  cases  contemplated  by  this  Act  shall  be 
computed  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  amount  of  interest  due  to  any  State  or  Territory,  when 
ascertained  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  to  the  Governor  of  such  State  or 
Territory,  or  the  duly  authorized  agent  thereof,  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 


EXHIBIT  No.  4. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  2463.    Printer's  No.,  7289.    [Report  No.  1102.] 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.'  January  8,  1884 — Read  twice,  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

April  1,  1884 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the 
state  of  the  Union  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Stevens  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  reimburse  the  several  States  for  interest  paid  on  war  loans,  and  for  other 

purposes. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  proper  accounting  officers 
of  the  Treasury  Department  be  and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed 
to  examine,  adjust,  and  settle  the  claims  of  the  several  States  of  the  Union 
against  the  United  States  for  interest  upon  loans  or  moneys  borrowed  and 
actually  expended  by  said  States,  respectively,  for  the  use  and  benefit  of 
the  United  States,  under  authority  of  the  Act  of  Congress  entitled  "An  Act 
to  indemnify  the  States  for  expenses  incurred  by  them  in  defense  of  the 
United  States,"  approved  July  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- 


492 

one,  and  under  the  explanatory  joint  resolution  entitled  "joint  resolution 
declaratory  of  the  intent  and  meaning  of  a  certain  Act  therein  named," 
approved  March  eighth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-two,  and  kindred  Acts,' 
providing  for  the  reimbursement  of  moneys  advanced  by  States  to  aid  in 
suppressing  the  rebellion;  provided,  that  the  benefits  of  this  Act  shall  not 
extend  to  any  State  which  shall  not  have  presented  a  claim  for  such  interest 
at  the  expiration  of  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this  Act. 

Sec.  2.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  due  to  any  State  as 
aforesaid  the  following  rules  shall  be  applicable  and  shall  govern  the  case, 
to  wit: 

First — That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  such  State 
has  not  expended  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as  evidenced 
by  the  amount  refunded  or  repaid,  or  which  may  hereafter  be  refunded  or, 
repaid,  to  such  State,  under  and  by  authority  of  the  said  Acts  of  Congress 
and  the  explanatory  resolution  hereinabove  referred  to. 

Second — That  interest  shall  not  be  paid  to  any  State  on  any  sum  on 
which  such  State  shall  not  have  paid  or  lost  interest. 

Third — That  when  the  principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  paid  or 
refunded  by  the  United  States  to  any  State,'^or  placed  in  the  hands  of  such 
State  for  that  purpose,  interest  on  the  amount  of  such  sum  or  gums  so  paid 
or  refunded  shall  cease,  and  not  be  considered  as  chargeable  to  the  United 
States  any  longer  than  up  to  the  time  of  the  repayment  aforesaid. 

Fourth — That  interest  shall  in  all  cases  contemplated  by  this  Act  be 
computed  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  amount  of  interest  due  to  any  State,  when  ascertained 
as  aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise 
appropriated. 

EXHIBIT  No.  5. 

TO  THE   COMMITTEE   ON  WAR   CLAIMS. 

U.  S.  House  of  Representatives. 

The  object  of  H.  B.  No.  2364,  as  its  language  plainly  imports,  is  to  pro- 
vide for  the  payment  of  interest  by  the  United  States  to  the  several  States 
entitled  thereto,  not  upon  the  whole  amount  of  their  respective  advances  to 
the  United  States,  for  the  purposes  mentioned  in  the  Reimbursement  Acts 
of  1861  and  1862;  but  on  that  part  only,  of  such  advances,  as  upon  which 
such  States  ^^  paid  or  lost  interest.^'  The  words  ^' lost  interest"  being  con- 
strued, always  (by  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury),  to  have  the 
meaning  which  was  given  to  them  in  the  settlement  authorized  by  the  Act 
March  13,  1832,  passed  for  the  benefit  of  South  Carolina,  and  all  subse- 
quent Acts  of  similar  form  and  purpose,  to  wit:  moneys  derived  from  the 
sale  or  conversion  of  interest-bearing  securities,  or  withdrawn  from  invest- 
ments which,  at  the  time  of  such  conversion  or  withdrawal,  were  yielding 
interest  to  the  State. 

The  limitation  sought  to  be  fixed  by  said  bill,  on  the  extent  to  which  the 
United  States  should  admit  and  discharge  her  liability  for  interest,  to  the 
individual  States  so  advancing  her  money,  is  derived  from  the  practice  of 
the  United  States  in  dealing  with  such  cases  in  the  past,  more  than  from 
any  obvious  reasons,  in  justice,  why  interest  should  not  be  paid  in  all  cases 
where  such  advances  were  solicited  and  received  by  the  General  Government, 
on  the  whole  amount  so  advanced,  at  the  same  rate  of  interest  which  the 


493 

United  States  would  have  been  obliged  to  pay  for  said  moneys,  had  they 
been  derived  from  other  sources.  Said  rules,  however,  having  been  uni- 
formly adopted  by  Congress,  and  accepted  by  the  individual  States  from 
time  to  time  for  nearly  sixty  years,  as  properly  measuring  the  liability  of 
the  United  States  on  account  of  interest  on  similar  advances,  are  now  pro- 
posed by  the  States  interested,  as  forming  the  correct  and  reasonable  basis 
for  a  settlement  of  the  claims  arising  under  the  said  Reimbursement  Acts 
of  1861  and  1862,  and  kindred  legislation  for  the  same  general  purpose. 

The  Reimbursement  Acts  last  above  referred  to,  provide,  "  That  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  directed,  out  of  any  money 
in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  pay  to  the  Governor  of  any 
State,  or  to  his  duly  authorized  agents,  cost,  charges,  and  expenses  properly 
incurred  by  such  State,  for  enrolling,  subsisting,  clothing,  supplying,  arm- 
ing, equipping,  paying,  and  transporting  its  troops  employed  in  aiding  to 
suppress  the  present  insurrection  against  the  United  States,  to  be  settled 
upon  proper  vouchers,  to  be  filed  and  passed  upon  by  the  proper  accounting 
officers  of  the  Treasury." 

By  the  explanatory  resolution,  passed  March  8,  1862,  it  is  declared  that 
the  provisions  of  the  above  cited  Act  shall  be  construed  as  applying  to 
such  expenses  incurred,  as  well  after  as  before  the  passage  of  said  Act. 
(See  opinion  Att'y  Genl.,  Appendix  "A.") 

It  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  States  making  advances  of  money, 
as  contemplated  and  authorized  by  said  Acts  of  Congress,  understood  that 
they  were  to  be  reimbursed  the  amounts  paid  by  them,  respectively,  as 
interest  on  the  moneys  so  advanced  (and  which  were,  perhaps,  in  every 
instance,  in  great  part,  if  not  in  whole,  borrowed  by  them  for  the  purpose 
of  such  advances),  for  it  is  seen  that  many  States,  upon  the  passage  of  said 
Acts  of  Congress,  proceeded  at  once  to  borrow  liberally  on  obligations  of 
their  own,  and  to  expend  the  money  thus  obtained  for  the  use  and  benefit 
of  the  United  States. 

The  States,  in  making  such  advances  and  paying  interest  on  the  money 
advanced,  did  not,  it  is  fair  to  assume,  act  on  their  own  construction  of 
said  reimbursement  Acts  alone,  but  relied  on  the  interpretation  placed 
thereon  by  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  his  official  corre- 
spondence with  the  Auditor  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  with  reference  to  this 
matter  of  interest.  Upon  the  subject  of  the  liability  of  the  General  Gov- 
ernment on  account  of  such  advances,  the  Hon.  Salmon  P.  Chase,  then 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  under  date  of  July  29,  1861  (two  days  after 
the  passage  of  said  reimbursement  Act),  wrote  as  follows:  "As  to  the 
'double  discount'  of  which  you  speak,  if  Ohio  raises  money  by  loan,  at  a 
discount,  the  United  States  cannot,  of  course,  refund  such  discount  to  the 
States,  but  only  the  amount  of  debt,  with  interest,  unless  Congress  specially 
provide  otherwise."  (Appendix  "  B  "  and  "  C")  The  only  reasonable  con- 
struction of  which  language  is,  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
considered  itself  authorized,  without  further  legislation,  to  pay  ^'the  debt, 
with  interest.''''  Thus,  it  appears,  that  at  the  time  when  said  advances 
were  being  made,  there  seemed  to  be  no  doubt  entertained,  either  on  the 
part  of  the  States  or  the  Government,  that  the  scope  of  the  reimbursement 
Acts  aforesaid,  then  just  passed,  embraced  not  only  the  moneys  expended, 
in  conformity  therewith,  but  also  the  interest  paid  thereon. 

In  pursuance  of  this  construction  of  said  laws,  the  States  continued  to 
advance  money,  and,  in  presenting  claims  for  the  reimbursement  of  the 
same,  accounts  were  presented,  containing  the  item  of  ^^ interest  paid" 
which  said  items,  however,  were  not  allowed  by  the  accounting  officers  of 
the  Government. 


494 

In  order  to  obtain  from  the  Treasury  Department  an  authoritative,  and, 

if  possible,  a  more  favorable  decision  on  this  point,  on  the  —  day  of  , 

1883,  the  attorneys  for  the  State  of  New  York  presented  a  formal  demand 
to  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  for  the  amount  of  interest 
which  said  State  claimed  to  have  paid  on  money  advanced  for  the  use  of 
the  United  States,  as  aforesaid. 

The  opinion  of  the  honorable  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States,  as 
to  the  authority  for  payment  of  said  demand  without  further  legislation, 
was  applied  for  and  obtained  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and,  in 
conformity  therewith,  the  payment  demanded  was  declined,  upon  the 
ground  that  it  was  not  specifically  authorized. 

In  said  opinion,  however,  the  honorable  Attorney- General,  after  referring 
to  divers  statutes  passed  by  Congress  to  authorize,  specifically,  the  payment 
of  interest  on  such  advances,  uses  the  following  language:  "  Undoubtedly, 
the  interest  paid  by  the  State  of  New  York  on  money  borrowed  and  applied 
to  the  objects  specified  in  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  forms  a  part  of  the 
burden  borne  by  that  State,  for  the  general  public  defense,  and  constitutes 
a  just  charge  against  the  United  States;  and  the  obligation  to  reimburse 
for  payments  of  that  kind,  made  under  similar  circumstances,  has  fre- 
quently been  recognized  by  Congress,  as  appears  by  statutes  above  cited." 
(See  Opinion  Attorney-General,  Appendix  "A.") 

By  reason  of  said  decision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  the  States 
interested  are  obliged  to  apply  to  Congress  for  the  legislation  necessary  to 
^^  expressly  authorize"  and  provide  for,  the  payment  of  their  several  claims 
for  the  sums  by  them,  respectively,  expended  as  aforesaid.  In  this  con- 
nection, it  is  thought  appropriate  to  review  briefly  the  various  laws  passed, 
from  time  to  time,  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  interest  due  to  the  differ- 
ent States,  on  advances  by  them  made  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  in 
the  prosecution  of  all  the  different  wars,  both  foreign  and  Indian,  from 
the  time  of  the  last  war  with  Great  Britain  in  1812  down  to  the  date  of 
the  last  Act  for  the  benefit  of  the  State  of  Maine,  approved  June  12,  1858, 
extending  through  a  period  of  nearly  fifty  years,  and  embracing  all  legis- 
lation of  this  character  enacted  by  Congress. 

The  first  Act  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  such  interest  was  passed 
March  3,  1825,  for  the  benefit  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  and  its  phraseology 
was  adopted  literally,  except  as  to  the  names  of  the  several  beneficiaries,  in 
the  enactment  of  the  next  succeeding  five  Acts  passed  for  similar  purposes, 
and  which  said  Acts  were  of  the  several  dates  and  for  the  objects  following, 
to  wit:  for  the  benefit  of  Maryland,  May  13,  1826;  for  Delaware,  May  20, 
1826;  for  the  City  of  Baltimore,  May  20, 1826;  for  New  York,  May  22, 1826; 
and  for  Pennsylvania,  March  3,  1827.  (For  fall  text  of  said  Virginia  Act, 
see  Appendix  "  B.") 

By  reference  to  these  last  mentioned  Acts  it  will  be  observed  that  H.  B. 
No.  2364  is  substantially  a  transcript  of  them,  except  that  it  specifies  the 
rate  of  interest  to  be  paid  (and  which  rate  is  the  same  that  has  been  paid 
under  every  Act  authorizing  the  payment  of  such  interest,  whether  specified 
in  the  Act  or  not),  and  that  it  further  provides  for  payment  of  "interest 
lost,"  according  to  the  meaning  given  to  that  term  as  used  in  the  Act  of 
March  13,  1832,  and  subsequent  Acts,  as  aforesaid. 

The  Act  of  March  13,  1832,  was  the  first  that  was  passed  providing  for 
the  payment  to  a  State  of  any  interest  except  such  as  the  State  had  actu- 
ally paid;  the  object  of  said  Act,  as  set  forth  in  the  first  section  thereof, 
being  to  indemnify  South  Carolina  for  the  loss  of  interest  on  money  "  ex- 
pended for  the  use  of  the  United  States,"  etc.,  "the  money  so  expended 
having  been  drawn  by  the  State  from  a  fund  upon  which  she  was  then 


495 

receiving  interest.''^     (See  Appendix  "  E  "  for  the  first  two  sections  of  said 
Act.) 

The  provision  pecuhar  to  said  last  mentioned  Act,  and  hereinabove 
referred  to,  has  been  reenacted  in  every  statute  of  later  date  to  provide  for 
the  payment  of  interest  to  States  on  advances  of  the  character  of  those 
under  consideration. 

The  next  statute  upon  this  subject  is  that  of  June  2,  1848,  and  which, 
being  general  in  its  nature,  applied  to  all  the  States  which  under  authority 
of  the  resolution  of  March  3,  1847,  had  furnished  troops,  etc.,  for  service  in 
the  Mexican  war. 

This  last  mentioned  statute  so  amended  the  said  resolution  of  March  3, 
1847,  as  to  materially  enlarge  its  scope  as  to  the  character  of  advances 
which  might  be  reimbursed,  and  as  to  the  sources  from  which  they  might 
have  proceeded,  as  well  as  to  the  circumstances  and  conditions  under  which 
they  might  have  been  made.  By  it  provision  was  also  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  interest  on  advances  made  under  authority  of  the  resolution 
amended,  and  the  rate  fixed  at  six  per  cent  per  annum.  Section  3  of  said 
Act  is  as  follows:  ''And  be  it  further  enacted,  that  in  refunding  moneys 
under  this  Act  and  the  resolution  which  it  amends,  it  shall  be  lawful  to 
pay  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum  on  all  sums  advanced 
by  States,  corporations,  or  individuals  in  all  cases  when  the  State,  corpora- 
tion, or  individual  paid  or  lost  the  interest,  or  is  liable  to  pay  it.^^  (See 
Appendix  "F"  for  full  text  of  Act.) 

Thus  it  will  be  observed  that  under  said  Act,  as  amended,  reimburse- 
ment was  authorized  not  only  of  advances  made  by  States,  or  under 
authority  of  States,  but  also  for  advances  made  by  counties,  corporations,  or 
individuals,  either  acting  with  or  without  the  authority  of  any  State. 

The  same  principle  was  observed  in  the  Act  of  January  26,  1849,  ^^au- 
thorizing the  payment  of  interest  upon  the  advances  made  by  the  State  of 
Alabama  for  the  use  of  the  United  States  Government  in  the  suppression  of 
the  Creek  Indian  hostilities  of  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-six  and  eighteen 
hundred  and  thirty-seven,  in  Alabama"  (see  Appendix  "G");  in  the  Act 
of  March  3,  1851,  "  to  authorize  the  Secretary  of  War  to  allow  the  payment 
of  interest  to  the  State  of  Georgia  for  advances  made  for  the  use  of  the  tlnited 
States  in  the  suppression  of  hostilities  of  the  Creeks,  Cherokee,  and  Seminole 
Indians,^^  etc.  (Rev.  Stat.,  vol.  9,  p.  626),  and  in  the  Act  of  the  same  date, 
"  authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  upon  the  advances  made  by  the  State  of 
Maine  for  the  use  of  the  United  States  Government  in  the  protection  of  the 
Northeastern  frontier  f^  and  the  language  used  in  all  three  of  said  Acts  is 
adopted  in  House  Bill  No.  2463. 

The  last  mentioned  Act  was  amended  by  that  of  August  31,  1852,  which 
amendment  extended  the  operation  of  said  amended  Act  so  as  to  cover 
interest  for  other  years,  as  well  as  to  those  provided  for  originally  in  said 
Act;  and,  again,  still  further  amendment  was  made  to  said  Act  by  the  Act 
of  June  12, 1858,  so  that  discount  suffered  as  well  as  ''^interest  paid  and  lost " 
was  authorized  to  be  paid  to  said  State.     (Rev.  Stat.,  vol.  9,  p.  626.) 

From  the  foregoing  review  of  the  legislation  on  the  subject  of  the  reim- 
bursement of  advances  made  by  the  individual  States  for  the  use  of  the 
United  States  to  aid  in  the  public  defense,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  action 
of  the  General  Government  has  in  all  such  cases  been  just,  even  if  some- 
times tardy;  and  that,  according  to  the  peculiar  conditions  of  each  case, 
Congress  has  always  dealt  fairly  and  sometimes  even  generously  with 
States  making  such  advances.  In  no  known  instance  has  the  United 
States  refused  to  pay  the  reasonable  demands  of  the  States  for  such  interest 
due  them;  and  while  she  has  never  made  any  effort  to  narrow  or  restrict 


496 

the  operation  of  laws  which  authorized  reimbursement  of  moneys  so 
advanced,  on  the  other  hand,  in  order  to  effect  justice,  Congress  has  fre- 
quently, and  according  to  the  circumstances  affecting  the  case,  amended 
Acts  authorizing  such  advances,  extending  their  scope,  and  liberalizing 
their  provisions  for  the  benefit  of  the  States  interested. 

There  being  abundant  precedent  for  the  legislation  proposed  in  H.  B.  No. 
2463,  and  its  object  being  obviously  just,  there  appears  no  reasonable  ground 
for  objection  to  its  present  enactment.  As  has  been  shown,  moneys  were 
borrowed  by  the  States,  and  by  them  practically  loaned  to  the  United  States, 
under  the  provisions  of  laws  which  were  construed  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  at  the  time  such  advances  were  being  made,  as  covering  interest 
paid  hy  the  States  for  such  moneys.  In  accordance  with  the  construction 
held  by  the  interested  States,  of  the  laws  under  which  such  advances  were 
made,  demands  for  the  interest  claimed  to  be  due  them  have  been  duly 
presented  by  such  States  to  "  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treas- 
ury," and  payment  thereof  refused,  not  because  it  does  not  "  constitute  a 
just  charge  against  the  United  States,^^  but  for  want  of  the  "  specific  author- 
ization "  which  this  bill  is  designed  to  give.  Therefore  there  can  be  no 
relief  for  the  States  except  such  as  Congress  may  give. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  stated  that,  first,  the  payment  of  such  interest 
is  but  the  discharge  of  an  obligation  which,  in  the  language  of  the  Attorney- 
General  above  cited,  "has  frequently  been  recognized  hg  Congress"  in  fact, 
has  been  invariably  so  recognized;  second,  that  the  rules  proposed  for  gov- 
erning the  computation  of  such  interest  are  those  which  have  generally 
been  adopted  by  Congress  in  similar  cases,  and  propose  nothing  to  which 
repeated  legislative  sanction  has  not  been  given;  and,  finally,  the  rate  of 
interest  proposed  is  not  only  precisely  that  which  has  been  authorized  in 
every  Act  of  this  character  heretofore  passed  by  Congress,  but  it  is  the 
lowest  rate  which  ivas  being  paid  by  the  United  States  at  the  time  such 
moneys  were  advanced  for  her  use  and  benefit,  and  up  to  the  time  they  were 
principally  refunded,  and  the  rate  which  (in  addition  to  the  discount  suf- 
fered on  her  bonds)  the  Government  of  the  United  States  would  have  been 
obliged  to  pay  for  said  moneys  had  they  not  been  so  advanced  by  the  States. 

All  of  which  is  now  very  respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 

State  Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada. 

[Copy.] 

Appendix  "A." 

Depaktment  of  Justice,  Washington,  D.  C,  July  23,  1883. 
Hon.  Charles  J.  Folger,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury: 

Sir:    Your  letter  of  the  seventh  of  June,  1882,  and  the  papers  which  accompanied  it, 

5 resent  for  my  consideration  the  following  question,  whether  the  claim  of  the  State  of 
[ew  York  for  interest  paid  by  that  State  on  money  borrowed  and  expended  in  enrolling, 
subsisting,  clothing,  etc.,  its  troops  employed  to  aid  in  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion, 
is  within  the  provisions  of  the  Act  oi  July  27,  18G1,  entitled  "An  Act  to  indemnify  the 
States  for  expenses  incurred  by  them  in  defense  of  the  United  States."  Delay  in  answer- 
ing this  question  has  been  occasioned  mainly  by  the  demands  from  time  to  time,  of  other 
business  that  seemed  to  require  immediate  attention.  I  have  now  the  honor  to  submit 
my  views  thereon :  * 

The  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  provides:  "That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  is 
hereby  directed,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  pay  to 
the  Governor  of  any  State,  or  to  his  duly  authorized  agents,  the  costs,  charges,  and  ex- 
penses properly  incurred  by  such  State  for  enrolling,  subsisting,  clothing,  supplying, 
arming,  equipping,  paying,  and  transporting  its  troops  employed  in  aiding  to  suppjress 


497 

the  present  insurrection  against  the  United  States,  to  be  settled  upon  proper  vouchers  to 
be  filed  and  passed  upon  by  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury." 

By  a  resolution  passed  March  8,  1862,  the  above  provision  is  to  be  construed  to  apply  to 
expenses  incurred  as  well  after  as  before  the  date  of  the  approval  thereof. 

Under  this  legislation,  the  State  of  New  York  has  already  been  reimbursed  the  amount 
of  money  which  was  expended  by  it  for  the  objects  specified  in  the  Act  of  1861,  exclusive 
of  interest  paid  on  the  money  so  expended,  all  of  which  the  State  was  compelled  to  bor- 
row. Such  interest  formed  an  item  in  the  account  rendered  by  the  State,  but  was  not 
allowed  in  the  adjustment  thereof  made  at  the  Treasury,  the  accounting  officers  not 
regarding  it  as  admissible  under  the  statute.  On  the  part  of  the  State,  however,  it  is  urged 
that  the  interest  mentioned  properly  constitutes  a  part  of  the  "costs,  charges,  and  ex- 
penses" incurred  for  the  objects  above  referred  to  within  the  meaning  of  said  Act. 

According  to  the  construction  originally  adopted,  and  thus  far  uniformly  acted  upon,  in 
settling  the  claims  of  States  under  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  the  provisions  thereof  extend 
only  to  such  outlay  by  the  State  as  were  made  directly  and  specifically  on  account  of  "en- 
rolling, subsisting,  clothing,  supplying,  arming,  equipping,  paying,  "and  transporting  its 
troops,"  and  as  payments  made  by  the  State  on  account  of  interest  upon  a  loan  to  it  of 
the  money  thus  expended,  though  the  expenses  incurred  for  those  objects  were  indirectly 
and  in  a  general  way  augmented  thereby  are  not  strictly  outlays  of  the  above  character, 
such  payments  do  not  come  within  the  scope  of  the  Act. 

This  interpretation  accords  with  that  which  prevailed  in  the  execution  of  similar  pro- 
visions under  which  States  were  reimbursed  for  advances  made  by  them  during  the  war 
of  1812,  and  other  subsequent  wars. 

By  the  Act  of  April  29,  1826,  chap.  160,  an  appropriation  was  made  "for  defraying  the 
expenses  incurred  by  calling  out  the  militia,  during  the  late  war,"  in  addition  to  the  sums 
theretofore  appropriated  to  that  object,  which  was  applied  to  the  reimbursement  of  States 
for  advances  to  meet  such  expenses.  By  the  Act  of  March  3, 1817,  chap.  86,  an  appropria- 
tion was  made  "for  the  payment  of  balances  due  to  certain  States  on  account  of  disburse- 
ments for  militia  employed  in  the  service  of  the  United  States  during  the  late  war."  And 
by  the  Act  of  April  20,  1818,  chap.  109,  an  appropriation  was  made  "for  the  payment  of 
balances  due  several  States,  on  an  adjustment  of  their  accounts,  for  expenses  incurred  by 
calling  out  the  militia  during  the  war."  Although  in  each  of  these  provisions,  very 
general  and  comprehensive  terms  were  employed,  yet  they  were  not  construed  to  authorize 
the  reimbursement  of  expenditures  made  by  the  States  on  account  of  interest,  and  no 
claims  for  such  expenditures  were  allowed  thereunder.  Congress  subsequently  provided 
for  these  claims  by  special  legislation  (thus  impliedly  recognizing  the  construction  given 
the  general  provisions  as  above),  and  presented  certain  rules  for  their  adjustment  (see  Act 
of  March  3,  1825,  chap.  106,  May  13,  1826,  chap.  39,  May  20,  1826,  chap.  77,  May  22,  1826, 
chap.  151,  March  3.  1827,  chap.  79,  March  22,  1832,  chap.  57),  so  by  the  Act  of  August  11, 
1842,  chap.  127,  an  amount  was  appropriated  "to  the  payment  and  indemnity  of  the  State 
of  Georgia  for  any  money  actually  paid  by  said  State  on  account  of  necessary  and  proper 
expenses  incurred  by  said  State  in  calling  out  her  militia,"  during  the  Seminole,  Cherokee, 
and  Creek  campaigns,  in  the  years  1835  to  1838;  and  by  the  Act  of  August  16,  1842,  chap. 
178,  the  Secretary  was  directed  to  audit  and  adjust  the  claims  of  the  State  of  Alabama, 
"for  moneys  advanced  and  paid  by  said  State  for  subsistence,  supplies,  and  services  of 
local  troops  called  into  service  by  and  under  the  authorities  of  said  States,"  etc.,  during 
Creek  and  Seminole  hostilities.  Under  neither  of  these  Acts  were  allowances  made  for 
advances  on  account  of  interest.  But  by  Act  of  January  26,  1849,  chap.  25,  in  the  case  of 
Alabama,  and  by  Act  of  March  3,  1851,  chap.  35,  in  the*  case  of  Georgia,  Congress  made 
special  provision  for  such  allowances,  under  rules  and  according  to  rates  there  prescribed. 

By  a  resolution  of  Congress  passed  March  3,  1847,  provision  was  made  for  refunding  to 
the  several  States,  etc.,  "  the  amount  of  expenses  incurred  by  them  in  organizing,  subsist- 
ing, and  transporting  volunteers  previous  to  their  being  mustered  and  received  into  the 
service  of  the  United  States"  for  the  Mexican  war.  This  provision,  it  would  seem,  was 
not  regarded  as  authorizing  reimbursement  for  interest  paid  up  on  moneys  expended  for 
those  purposes;  since  it  was  apparently  deemed  necessary,  in  order  to  authorize  such 
reimbursements,  to  provide  therefor  by  further  legislation,  which  is  found  in  the  amend- 
atory Act  of  June  2,  1848,  chap.  60. 

Undoubtedly,  the  interest  paid  by  the  State  of  New  York  on  money  borrowed  and 
applied  to  the  objects  specified  in  the  Act  of  July  27, 1861,  forms  a  part  of  the  burden  borne 
by  that  State  for  the  general  public  defense,  and  constitutes  a  just  charge  against  the 
Ifnited  States;  and  the  obligation  to  reimburse  for  payments  of  that  kind,  made  under 
similar  circumstances,  has  frequently  been  recognized  by  Congress,  as  appears  by  statutes 
above  cited.  But  to  construe  the  provisions  of  that  Act  so  as  to  include  such  expenditures 
would  be  giving  them  a  meaning  much  broader  than  that  which  has  in  practice  been  given 
other  legislation  of  like  character  and  purpose,  or  that  seems  to  be  warranted  by  any, 
sound  rule  of  interpretation.  When  a  payment  from  the  Treasury  is  claimed  under  a 
statute,  the  payment,  in  order  to  be  allowed,  should  appear  to  be  authorized  either 
expressly  or  by  very  clear  implication  (9  Opin.,  59).  The  language  of  the  Act  under  con- 
sideration, viewed  with  reference  to  claims  based  upon  expenditures  for  interest,  does  not 
satisfy  that  requirement;  for  while  no  authority  to  reimburse  the  States  for  interest  paid 
by  them  is  expressly  conferred  thereby,  such  authority  is  not  clearly  to  be  implied  there- 
from. Indeed,  the  absence  of  any  provision  in  the  Act  expressly  authorizing  reimburse- 
ment for  interest  rather  gives  rise  to  the  implication  that  such  reimbursement  was  not 
meant  to  be  allowed  thereunder;  as  in  other  similar  cases  reimbursement  for  interest  has 

32°* 


498 

generally  been  made  the  subject  of  express  authorization  where  Congress  intended  its 
allowance. 

I  am  accordingly  of  the  opinion  that  the  claim  of  the  State  of  New  York,  referred  to  in 
the  question  submitted,  does  not  come  within  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

BENJAMIN  HARRIS  BREWSTER, 

Attorney-General. 

Appendix  "B." 

Office  of  the  Auditor  of  State,  Columbus,  Ohio,  July  25,  1861. 

Hon.  S.  P.  Chase,  Secretary,  Washington  : 

Sir  :  Yesterday  I  sent  you  a  dispatch  inquiring  whether  Government  would  refund  to 
the  State  a  portion  of  the  expenditures  for  organizing,  clothing,  subsisting,  and  equipping 
troops  for  Government  service  without  requiring  accounts  to  be  audited  and  allowed,  the 
payment  to  be  subject  to  future  adjustment.  The  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund 
have  advertised  a  loan,  which,  or  the  greater  part  of  which,  may  be  withdrawn  from  mar- 
ket, if  the  Government  can  pay  the  State  money  on  account  and  hereinafter  pass  upon 
items.  If  the  accounts  must  first  be  audited  and  allowed  the  time  necessary  for  that  pur- 
pose will  delay  the  receipt  of  money,  and  make  it  necessary  for  the  State  to  obtain  it  by 
loan.  If  possible  this  should  be  avoided,  and  the  double  discount  which  will  be  inevitable, 
if  the  State  borrows  and  then  the  Government  to  repay  the  State.  Our  loan  is  advertised 
for  August  seventh,  in  New  York,  at  which  time  it  will  be  necessary  that  some  arrangement 
for  money  for  immediate  use  shall  have  been  made.  If  the  Government  can,  in  the  way 
suggested,  pay  $150,000  to  |200,000  per  week  the  State  can  satisfy  the  demands  upon  her 
without  being  compelled  to  borrow,  unless  temporarily.  In  case  you  should  be  able  to 
refund  in  advance  of  audited  accounts  such  vouchers  or  acknowledgment,  as  you  may 
desire,  will  be  given.  I  wish,  however,  that  it  be  distinctly  understood  that  Ohio  will  not 
so  press  for  money  as  in  any  sense  to  embarrass  you.  I  know  nothing  about  the  condition 
of  the  Treasury,  and  must  not  be  regarded  as  importuning  you  to  do  what  may  be  incon- 
sistent with  a  due  regard  for  more  pressing  liabilities. 
I  am,  very  respectfully, 

R.  W.  TAYLER,  Auditor. 

Appendix  "C." 

Treasury  Department,  June  29,  1861. 

My  Dear  Sir:  Yours  of  the  twenty-fifth,  making  inquiry  in  regard  to  the  refunding  of 
State  expenditures  for  organizing,  clothing,  subsisting,  and  equipping  of  troops,  is  received. 
If  you  will  accept  Treasury  notes  in  payment,  the  expenditures  of  Ohio  will  be  paid  pro 
rata,  as  those  of  Indiana  have  been,  upon  the  statements  of  the  Governor  and  State  offi- 
cers, leaving  the  accounts  to  be  audited  hereafter.  It  will  be  impossible  to  advance  the 
coin  at  present.  As  to  the  *' double  discount"  of  which  you  speak,  if  Ohio  raises  money 
by  loan,  at  a  discount,  the  United  States  cannot  refund  such  discount  to  the  State,  but 
only  the  amount  of  the  debt  with  interest,  unless  Congress  specially  provide  otherwise. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

S.  P.  CHASE. 

Hon.  R.  W.  Tayler,  Auditor  of  the  State  of  Ohio. 

Appendix  "D." 
An  Act  authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  due  to  the  State  of  Virginia. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  be 
and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claim  of  the  State 
of  Virginia  against  the  United  States,  for  interest  upon  loans  or  moneys  borrowed  and 
actually  expended  by  her,  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  during  the  late  war 
with  Great  Britain. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  as 
aforesaid,  due  to  the  State  of  Virginia,  the  following  rules  shall  be  understood  as  applica- 
ble to  and  governing  the  case,  to  wit: 

First — That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  Virginia  has  not  expended 
.for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as  evidenced  by  the  amount  refunded  or  repaid 
to  Virginia  by  the  United  States. 

Second — That  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sum  on  which  she  has  not  paid  interest. 

I'hird — That  when  the  principal  or  any  part  of  it  has  been  paid  or  refunded  by  the 
United  States,  or  money  placed  in  the  hands  of  Virginia  for  that  purpose,  the  interest  on 
the  sum  or  sums  so  paid  or  refunded  shall  cease,  and  not  be  considered  as  chargeable  to 
the  United  States  any  longer  than  up  to  the  time  of  the  repayment  as  aforesaid. 

Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  amount  of  the  interest,  when  ascertained 
as  aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

Approved  March  3, 1825. 


499 

Appendix  "  E." 

An  Act  for  the  adjustment  and  settlement  of  the  claims  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  against 

the  United  States. 

[Approved  March  22,  1832.] 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  in  Congress 
assembled.  That  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  be  and  they  are  hereby 
authorized  and  directed  to  Hquidate  and  settle  the  claim  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina 
against  the  United  States  for  interest  upon  money  actually  expended  by  her  for  military 
stores  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States^  and  on  account  of  her  militia  whilst  in 
the  service  of  the  United  States,  during  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain ;  the  money  so 
expended  having  been  drawn  by  the  State  from  a  fund  upon  which  she  was  then  receiving  interest. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  to  be  paid 
as  aforesaid  to  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  interest  shall  be  computed  upon  sums  expended 
by  the  State  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as  aforesaid,  and  which  have 
been,  or  shall  be,  repaid  to  South  Carolina  by  the  United  States. 

Appendix  "  F." 

An  Act  to  refund  money  for  expenses  incurred,  subsistence,  and  transportation  furnished  for  the 
use  of  volunteers  during  the  present  war,  before  being  mustered  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  provisions  of  the  joint  resolution  approved  March  third,  eight- 
een hundred  and  forty-seven,  entitled  "A  Resolution  to  refund  money  to  the  States,  which 
have  supplied  volunteers  and  furnished  them  transportation,  during  the  present  war, 
before  being  mustered  and  received  into  the  service  of  the  United  States,"  be  and  the  same 
are  hereby  extended  so  as  to  embrace  all  cases  of  expenses  heretofore  incurred,  in  organiz- 
ing, subsisting,  and  transporting  volunteers,  previous  to  their  being  mustered  and  received 
into  the  service  of  the  United  States,  for  the  present  war,  whether  by  States,  counties,  cor- 
porations, or  individuals,  either  acting  with  or  without  the  authority  of  the  State;  provided, 
however,  that  proof  shall  be  made,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  of  the  amount 
thus  expended,  and  that  the  same  was  necessary  and  proper  for  tlie  troops  aforesaid. 

Sec  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  an  amount  sufficient  to  refund  said  expenses  so 
incurred  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated. 

Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  refunding  moneys  under  this  Act,  and  the 
resolution  which  it  amends,  it  shall  be  lawful  to  pay  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum 
per  annum  on  all  sums  advance  [advanced]  by  States,  corporations,  or  individuals,  in  all 
cases  where  the  State,  corporation,  or  individual  paid  or  lost  the  interest,  or  is  liable  to  pay  it. 

Approved  June  2,  1848. 

Appendix  "  G." 

An  Act  authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  upon  the  advances  made  by  the  State  of  Alabama  for 
the  use  of  the  United  States  Government  in  the  suppression  of  the  Creek  Indian  hostilities  of 
eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-six  and  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-seven. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be  and  he  is  hereby  directed  to  pay  inter- 
ests upon  the  advances  made  by  the  State  of  Alabama  for  the  use  of  the  United  States 
Government  for  the  suppression  of  hostilities  by  the  Creek  Indians,  in  eighteen  hundred 
and  thirty-six  and  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-seven,  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per 
annum  from  the  time  of  the  advances  until  the  principal  sum  was  paid  by  the  United 
States  to  the  State  of  Alabama;  and  the  sum  so  found  to  be  due  to  said  State  to  be  paid 
out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

Sec  2. '  Be  it  further  enacted.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  as  aforeaid 
due  to  the  State  of  Alabama,  the  following  rules  shall  govern:  That  interest  shall  not  be 
computed  on  any  sum  which  Alabama  has  not  expended  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the 
United  States,  as  evidenced  by  the  amount  refunded  or  repaid  to  the  State  of  Alabama  by 
the  United  States;  second,  that  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sum  on  which  the  said 
State  of  Alabama  did  not  either  pay  or  lose  interest  as  aforesaid. 

Approved  Januarj^  26,  1849. 

Appendix  "H." 

An  Act  to  authorize  the  Secretary  of  War  to  allow  the  payment  of  interest  to  the  State  of  Georgia 
for  advances  made  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  in  the  suppression  of  the  hostilities  of  the 
Creek,  Seminole,  and  Cherokee  Indians,  in  the  years  of  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-six,  eighteen 
hundred  and  thirty-seven,  and  eighteevi  hundred  and  thirty-eight. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  to  allow  to 
the  State  of  Georgia,  for  advances  made  to  the  United  States  for  the  suppression  of  the 
hostilities  of  the  Creek,  Seminole,  and  Cherokee  Indians,  in  the  years  of  eighteen  hundred 


500 

and  thirty-five,  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-six,  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-seven,  and 
eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-eight,  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent  per  annum  upon  ail 
sums  allowed  and  paid  to  the  State  of  Georgia,  or  that  may  hereafter  he  allowed  and  paid  for 
any  moneys  advanced  by  the  State  for  the  purpose  aforesaid,  from  the  date  of  such 
advances  until  the  principal  sum  or  sums  were  or  may  be  paid  by  the  United  States ;  pro- 
vided, that  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sum  on  which  the  said  State  of  Georgia  did  not 
either  pay  or  lose  interest. 
Approved  March  3,  1851. 

Appendix  "I," 

An  Act  authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  upon  the  advances  made  by  the  State  of  Maine  for  the 
use  of  the  United  States  Government,  in  the  protection  of  the  northeastern  frontier. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  be  and  they  are 
hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Maine 
against  the  United  States  for  interest  upon  money  borrowed  and  actually  expended  by  her 
for  the  protection  of  the  northeastern  frontier  of  said  State,  during  the  years  eighteenhun- 
dred  and  thirty-nine,  eighteen  hundred  and  forty,  and  eighteen  hundred  and  forty-one ; 
and  the  sum  so  found  to  be  due  said  State  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury 
not  otherwise  appropriated. 

Seo.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  as  afore- 
said due  to  the  State  of  Maine,  the  following  rules  shall  govern:  First,  that  interest  shall 
not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  Maine  has  not  expended  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the 
United  States,  as  evidenced  by  the  amount  refunded  or  repaid  to  the  State  of  Maine  by  the 
United  States;  second,  that  no  interest- shall  be  paid  on  any  sum  on  which  the  said  State 
of  Maine  did  not  either  pay  or  lose  interest,  as  aforesaid. 

Approved  March  3,  1851. 

Appendix  "  K." 

That  the  foregoing  brief  and  well  authenticated  statement  forms  the  basis  of  the  State's 
claim  to  be  reimbursed  for  interest,  and  that  it  is  a  claim  such  as  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  has  ever  acknowledged  and  paid,  will  appear  from  the  following  opinions  of 
Attorneys-General  and  abundant  precedents  in  Acts  of  Congress. 

Attorney-General  Wirt,  in  construing  the  Act  authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  to 
the  State  of  Virginia  (Act  of  March  3,  1825,  Stats,  at  Large,  vol.  4,  page  132),  says : 

"The  principle  is  this:  The  United  States  are  bound  by  the  relations  that  subsist 
between  the  General  and  State  Governments  to  provide  the  means  of  carrying  on  war, 
and  as  a  part  of  the  means  of  carrying  on  war,  to  provide  for  the  defense  of  the  several 
States.  When  the  United  States  fail  to  make  such  provision,  and  the  States  have  to 
defend  themselves  by  means  of  their  own  resources,  the  expenditure  thus  incurred  forms 
a  debt  against  the  United  States,  which  they  are  bound  to  reimburse.  If  the  expendi- 
tures made  for  such  purposes  are  supplied  "from  the  Treasury  of  the  State,  the  United 
States  reimburse  the  principal  without  interest;  but  if,  being  unable  itself,  from  the  con- 
dition of  its  own  finances,  to  meet  the  emergency,  such  State  has  been  obliged  to  borrow 
monej^  for  the  puri)Ose,  and  thus  to  incur  a  debt  on  which  she  herself  has  had  to  pay 
interest,  such  debt  is  essentially  a  debt  due  by  the  United  States,  and  both  the  princi- 
pal and  interest  are  to  be  paid  by  the  United  States.  So  that  where  the  State  has  had  to 
pay  interest  by  reason  of  her  taking  the  place  of  the  United  States  in  time  of  war,  such 
interest  forms  a  just  charge  against  the  United  States."  (Opinions  of  Attorneys-General, 
vol.  1,  page  174.) 

Attorney-General  Crittenden,  in  an  opinion  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  dated  November 
17,  1851,  as  to  the  question  of  interest  under  the  Act  of  February  27,  1851  (Statutes  at 
Large,  vol.  9,  page  573),  "  for  reimbursing  the  State  of  Florida,"  etc.,  says  : 

"  Your  second  question  relates  to  interest  which  '  the  accounting  officers  decline  to 
allow  on  the  moneys  advanced  and  obligations  contracted,'  although  the  State  of  Florida 
borrowed  the  money  and  paid  interest  thereon. 

"  The  question  turns  upon  the  true  meaning  and  intention  of  the  Legislature,  to  be 
collected  from  the  words  of  the  appropriation  of  $75,000,  'for  reimbursing  the  State  of 
Florida  under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  have  heretofore  governed  the  adjustment  of 
similar  claims  of  the  several  States  on  the  United  States,  for  moneys  advanced  and  paid, 
and  obligations  contracted  by  said  State,  for  subsistence,  supplies,  and  services  of  local 
troops  called  into  service  during  the  year  1849,  by  and  under  the  authorities  of  said  State.' 

"  Florida  is  to  be  reimbursed  for  moneys  advanced  and  paid,  for  expenses  incurred  and 
obligations  contracted  on  account  of  supplies,  pay,  and  subsistence  of  local  troops  called 
into  service  by  the  State  of  Florida  in  1849.  That  reimbursement  is  to  be  made  under  the 
rules  which  governed  the  adjustment  of  similar  claims  of  the  several  States  against  the 
United  States. 

"  By  an  Act  approved  May  13,  1826  (4  Statutes  at  Large,  page  161,  chapter  39),  the  proper 
accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  are  directed  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claims  of  the 
State  of  Maryland  against  the  United  States  upon  interest  of  loans  of  money  borrowed 
and  actually  expended  by  her  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States  during  the  late 
war  with  Great  Britain. 

" '  Sec.  2.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  as  aforesaid  the  following  rules 
shall  be  understood  as  applicable  to,  and  governing  the  case,  to  wit: 


501 

" '  First — That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  that  Maryland  has  not 
expended  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States. 

"^Second — That  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sums  on  which  she  has  not  paid 
interest. 

'"  Third — That  when  the  principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  refunded  by  the  United 
States,  or  money  placed  in  the  hands  of  Maryland  for  that  purpose,  the  interest  on  the 
sum  or  sums  so  refunded  shall  cease  and  not  be  considered  as  chargeable  to  the  United 
States  any  longer  than  up  to  the  time  of  repayment  as  aforesaid.' 

"  Act  of  March  22, 1832  (4  Stats,  at  Large,  page  499,  chap.  51)  directed  the  proper  account- 
ing officers  '  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claims  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  against  the 
United  States  for  interest  upon  money  actually  expended  by  her  for  military  stores  for 
the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States  during  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain,  the  money 
so  expended  having  been  drawn  by  the  State  from  a  fund  upon  which  she  was  then  receiv- 
ing interest. 

" '  Sec.  2.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  to  be  paid  as  aforesaid  to  the 
State  of  South  Carolina,  interest  shall  be  computed  on  the  sums  expended  by  the  State  for 
the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  and  which  have  been,  or  shall  be,  repaid  to  South 
Carolina  by  the  United  States.' 

"By  'An  Act  to  refund  money  for  expenses  incurred,  subsistence,  or  transportation 
furnished  for  the  use  of  volunteers  during  the  present  war  before  being  mustered  into 
the  service  of  the  United  States,'  approved  June  2,  1848  (9  Stats,  at  Large,  page  236,  chap. 
60),  it  was  enacted  in  Section  3  '  that  in  refunding  money  under  this  Act  it  shall  be  lawful 
to  pay  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum  on  all  sums  advanced  bv  States, 
corporations,  or  individuals,  in  all  cases  where  the  State,  corporation,  or  individual  has 
paid  or  lost  interest,  or  is  liable  to  pay  it.' 

"An  Act  approved  January  26,  1849  (Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  9,  page  344,  chapter  25), 
directed  the  Secretary  of  War  to  pay  to  the  State  of  Alabama  interest  upon  the  advances 
made  by  the  State  of  Alabama  for  the  use  of  the  United  States  in  the  suppression  of 
Indian  hostilities  by  the  Creek  Indians  in  1836  and  1837,  'at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum 
jjer  annum  from  the  time  of  the  advance  until  the  principal  sum  was  paid  by  the  United  States 
to  the  State  of  Alabama.  That  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sum  on  which  the  State 
of  Alabama  did  not  pay  or  lose  interest.' 

The  Act  of  twenty-seventh  February,  1861,  is  intended  to  indemnify  the  State  against 
loss  or  damage.    Reimbursing  means  repairing  the  loss  or  expenses  by  an  equivalent. 

If  the  State  of  Florida  has  contracted  obligations  bearing  interest,  or  has  paid  money, 
with  interest,  for  the  use  and  benefit,  in  necessary  and  proper  supplies  for  the  troops 
called  into  service  in  1849,  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Florida  the  principal  sum  only,  with- 
out the  interest,  would  not  reimburse  the  State,  would  not  save  the  State  from  loss  and 
damage,  would  not  be  an  equivalent  for  the  expense  the  State  has  incurred  for  the  United 
States. 

Moreover,  the  statute  expressly  refers  to  what  had  been  done  by  the  United  States  for 
other  States  in  like  circumstances. 

The  before  mentioned  statute  shows  the  rules  which  have  heretofore  governed  the 
adjustment  of  similar  claims  upon  the  United  States.  The  Acts  before  cited,  and  particu- 
larly that  of  the  second  June,  1848,  which  was  a  general  one,  embracing  the  claims  of 
many  States,  corporations,  and  individuals,  then  to  be  adjusted,  directed  that  an  interest, 
at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent  per  annum,  be  allowed  "on  all  sums  advanced  by  States,  corpora- 
tions, or  individuals,  when  the  State,  corporation,  or  individual  has  paid  or  lost  interest, 
or  is  liable  to  pay  it."    (Statutes  at  Large,  1848,  vol.  9,  page  236,  chapter  60.) 

From  the  beginning  of  the  Government  under  the  Federal  Constitution,  the  public 
defense,  in  whole  and  in  all  its  parts,  has  been  considered  as  a  duty  and  charge  upon  the 
Federal  Government.  In  the  adjustment  at  the  Treasury  Department  of  the  claims  of 
the  several  States,  for  advances,  expenditures,  and  supplies  necessary  for  troops  in  the 
exigencies  of  war,  or  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities,  there  is  no  public  policy,  no 
saving  to  the  public  Treasury,  no  virtue,  no  laudable  end  consulted  in  order  to  cut  down 
the  claims  of  the  several  States,  in  opposition  to  the  intention  of  Congress  and  the  good 
faith  of  the  Government,  thereby  to  send  the  State  to  Congress  to  ask  further  relief  by 
further  legislation. 

There  is  no  just  cause  for  not  allowing  to  the  State  of  Florida  an  interest  upon  all  sums 
advanced,  paid  out,  and  expended  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  and  obligations  by  that 
State  contracted  for  supplies  and  services  of  local  troops  called  into  service  in  1849,  by  and 
under  authority  of  said  State,  when  it  shall  appear  that  said  State  has  paid  or  lost  inter- 
est, or  is  liable  to  pay  interest  on  that  account. 

Interest  has  always  been  allowed  to  the  several  States  for  advances  made  to  the  United 
States  for  military  purposes. 

The  claims  of  the  several  States  for  advances  made  during  the  revolutionary  war  were 
adjusted  and  settled  under  the  provisions  of  the  Acts  of  Congress  of  August  5, 1790,  and  of 
May  31, 1794.  By  these  Acts  interest  was  allowed  to  the  States,  whether  they  had  advanced 
money  on  hand  in  their  treasuries  or  obtained  it  by  loans. 

In  respect  to  the  advances  by  States  during  the  war  of  1812-15,  a  more  restricted  rule 
was  adopted,  to  wit:  that  States  should  be  allowed  interest  only  so  far  as  they  themselves 
had  paid  it  by  borrowing,  or  had  lost  it  by  sale  of  interest-bearing  funds.  Interest  accord- 
ing to  this  last  rule  has  been  paid  to  all  the  States  which  made  advances  during  the  war 
of  1812-15,  except  the  State  oi  Massachusetts,  which  State  obtained  interest  according  to 
the  plan  of  settlement  under  the  Acts  of  1790-94. 


502 

We  cite  the  cases  where  interest  has  been  allowed  and  paid  for  moneys  advanced  during 
the  war  of  1812-15,  as  follows : 

Virginia,  Act  March  3,  1825,  4  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  132. 

Maryland,  Act  May  13,  1826,  4  Stats,  at  Large,  page  151. 

Delaware,  Act  May  20,  1826,  4  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  175. 

New  York,  Act  May  22,  1826,  4  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  192. 

Pennsylvania,  Act  March  3,  1827,  4  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  241. 

South  Carolina,  Act  March  22,  1832,  4  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  499. 

Massachusetts,  Act  July  8,  1870,  16  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  198. 

For  advances  for  Indian  and  other  wars  the  same  rule  has  been  observed  in  the  follow- 
ing cases : 

Alabama,  Act  January  26, 1849,  9  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  344. 

Georgia,  Act  March  31,  1851,  9  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  626. 

Washington  Territory,  Act  March  3,  1859,  11  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  429. 

New  Hampshire,  Act  January  27, 1852,  10  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  1. 

For  claims  growing  but  of  the  war  with  Mexico,  it  was  enacted  (Act  June  2, 1848, 9  Stats, 
at  Large,  p.  236.  chap.  60,  Sec.  3),  that  in  refunding  money  under  this  Act  it  shall  be  lawful 
to  pay  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum  on  all  sums  advanced  by  States, 
corporations,  or  individuals,  in  all  cases  where  the  State,  corporation,  or  individual  has 
paid  or  lost  interest,  or  is  liable  to  pay  it. 

Thus,  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  precedent  for  the  payment  of  interest  under  the  rule 
adopted  for  the  settlement  of  claims  of  the  war  of  1812-15,  is  well  established. 

Florida  asks  no  new  rule.  She  asks  only  to  be  placed  on  an  equal  footing  with  her  sis- 
ter States— to  be  reimbursed  for  interest  she  has  actually  paid,  and  is  now  paying.  The 
Indian  Trust  Fund  of  the  United  States  now  holds  seven  per  cent  bonds  of  the  State  of 
Florida  amounting,  principal  and  interest,  to  about  three  hundred  thousand  dollars,  of  which 
about  one  hundred  and  seventy  thousand  dollars  is  interest.  The  State  expects  of  course  to 
take  up  this  debt  in  the  settlement  she  now  desires  to  make  with  the  United  States. 

MARYLAKD. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
in  Congress  asseinUed,  That  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  be 
and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claim  of  the 
State  of' Maryland  against  the  United  States,  for  interest  upon  loans  on  moneys  bor- 
rowed, and  actually  expended  by  her,  for  the  use  and  the  benefit  of  the  United  States, 
during  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it 'further  enacted.  That,  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  as 
aforesaid,  due  to  the  State  of  Maryland,  the  following  rules  shall  be  understood  as  appli- 
cable to,  and  governing  the  case,  to  wit: 

First— TYini  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  Maryland  has  not  expended 
for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as  evidenced  by  the  amount  refunded  or 
paid  to  Maryland,  by  the  United  States. 

Second— Thsit  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sum  on  which  she  has  not  paid  interest. 

Third— Tha.t  when  the  principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  paid,  or  refunded  by  the 
United  States,  or  money  placed  in  the  hands  of  Maryland,  for  that  purpose,  the  interest 
on  the  sum  or  sums  so  paid  or  refunded,  shall  cease,  and  not  be  considered  as  chargeable 
to  the  United  States,  any  longer  than  up  to  the  time  of  the  repayment,  as  aforesaid. 

Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  the  amount  of  the  interest,  when  ascertained, 
as  aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  out  of  anv  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

Approved  May  13,  1826. 

DELAWARE. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  De'partment,  be 
and"  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claim  of  the  State 
of  Delaware  against  the  United  States,  for  interest  upon  loans  or  moneys  borrowed,  and 
actually  expended  by  her,  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States  during  the  late  war 
with  great  Britain. 

Sec  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  as  afore- 
said, due  to  the  State  of  Delaware,  the  following  rules  shall  be  understood  as  applicable 
to  and  governing  the  case,  to  wit: 

First— T\x2ii  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  Delaware  has  not  expended 
for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as  evidenced  by  the  amount  refunded  or 
repaid  to  Delaware  by  the  United  States. 

Second— T\i2ii  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sum  on  which  she  has  not  paid  interest. 

r/iirrf— That  when  the  principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  paid  or  refunded  by  the 
United  States,  or  moneys  placed  in  the  hands  of  Delaware  for  that  purpose,  the  interest 
on  the  sum  or  sums  so'paid  or  refunded  shall  cease  and  not  be  considered  as  chargeable 
to  the  United  States,  any  longer  that  up  to  the  time  of  the  repayment  as  aforesaid. 

Sec.  3.  And  belt  further  enacted,  That  the  amount  of  the  interest,  when  ascertained  as 
aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  monev  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

Approved  May  20,  1826. 

NEW  YORK. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 


503 

Congress  assembled,  That  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  be 
and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claimTof  the  State 
of  New  York  against  the  United  States,  for  interest  upon  loans  on  moneys  borrowed  and 
actually  expended  by  her  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States  during  the  late  war 
with  Great  Britain. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  as  afore- 
said due  to  the  State  of  New  York,  the  following  rules  shall  be  understood  as  applicable 
to  and  governing  the  case,  to  wit: 

First — That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  New  York  has  not  ex- 
pended for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as  evidenced  by  the  amount  refunded 
or  repaid  to  New  York  by  the  United  States. 

Second—That  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sum  on  which  she  has  not  paid  interest. 

Third — That  when  the  principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  paid  or  refunded  by  the 
United  States,  or  money  placed  in  the  hands  of  New  York  for  that  5)urpose,  the  interest 
on  the  sum  or  sums  so  paid  or  refunded  shall  cease  and  not  be  considered  as  chargeable 
to  the  United  States  any  longer  than  up  to  the  time  of  the  repayment  as  aforesaid. 

Sec  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  the  amount  of  the  interest,  when  ascertained 
as  aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

Approved  May  22, 1826. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  a.<sembled,  That  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  be 
and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claim  of  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania  against  the  United  States,  for  interest  upon  loans  or  moneys  borrowed 
and  actually  expended  by  her  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States  during  the  late 
war  with  Great  Britain. 

Sec  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That,  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  as  afore- 
said due  to  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  the  following  rules  shall  be  understood  as  applica- 
ble to  and  governing  the  case,  to  wit: 

i^m^— That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  Pennsylvania  has  not 
expended  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as  evidenced  by  the  amount  re- 
funded or  repaid  to  Pennsylvania  by  the  United  States. 

Second — That  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sum  on  which  she  has  not  paid  interest. 

Third— That  when  the  principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  paid  or  refunded  by  the 
United  States,  or  money  placed  in  the  hands  of  Pennsylvania  for  that  purpose,  the  inter- 
est on  the  sum  or  sums  so  paid  or  refunded  shall  cease,  and  not  be  considered  as  charge- 
able to  the  United  States  any  longer  than  up  to  the  time  of  the  repayment  as  aforesaid. 

Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  the  amount  of  the  interest,  when  ascertained 
as  aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

Approved  March  3,  1827. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled.  That  there  be  allowed  on  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  for 
interest  paid  by  her  on  money  expended  by  said  State  on  account  of  the  war  with  Great 
Britain  in  eighteen  hundred  and  twelve,  to  eighteen  hundred  and  fifteen,  the  sum  of  six 
hundred  and  seventy-eight  thousand  three  hundred  and  sixty-two  dollars  and  forty-one 
cents,  in  full  of  said  claim. 

WASHINGTON   TERRITOKY. 

To  enable  the  Secretary  of  War  to  pay  for  the  purchase  of  stores  furnished  for  the  use 
of  volunteers  engaged  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities  in  the  Territory  of  Washington 
during  the  late  Indian  hostilities  in  that  Territory,  seven  thousand  dollars,  with  interest 
from  the  time  the  money  was  advanced  by  Governor  Douglas  for  said  purchase. 

NEW   HAMPSHIRE. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  Second  Auditor  of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  author- 
ized and  directed  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claim  of  the  State  of  New  Hampshire  against 
the  United  States,  for  interest  upon  the  military  expenses  incurred  and  actually  expended 
by  her  for  the  protection  of  the  northeastern  frontier  of  said  State,  and  repelling  invasion 
and  suppressing  insurrection  at  Indian  Stream,  in  the  county  of  Coos,  in  said  State,  in 
the  years  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-five,  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-six,  and  eighteen 
hundred  and  thirty-seven;  and  the  sum  so  found  to  be  due  to  said  State,  shall  be  paid  out 
of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated ;  provided,  that  said  amount 
shall  not  exceed  six  thousand  dollars. 

Sec  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  that,  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest,  as  afore- 
said, due  to  the  State  of  New  Hampshire,  the  following  rules  shall  govern: 

First— That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  New  Hampshire  has  not 
expended  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as  evidenced  by  the  amount 
refunded  or  repaid  to  the  State  of  New  Hampshire. 

Second — That  interest  shall  not  be  paid  during  any  time,  on  any  sum  larger  than  the 
sum  the  State  was  paying  interest  for  at  such  time. 

Approved  January  27, 1852. 


504 


EXHIBIT   No.  5>^. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    Senate  320  and  H.  R.  109. 

To  the  honorable  Committee  on  Claims,  United  States  Senate,  and  to  the 
honorable  Committee  on  War  Claims,  United  States  House  of  Represen- 
tatives: 

Senate  Bill  No.  320,  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Senator  Miller  of 
California,  December  5,  1883,  and  referred  to  the  honorable  Committee  on 
Claims,  and  H.  R.  109,  introduced  by  Mr.  Henley  of  California,  in  the 
House  on  December  10,  1883,  and  referred  to  the  honorable  Committee  on 
War  Claims  for  action  and  report,  is  as  follows,  to  wit: 

A  BILL 

Authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  due  to  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada,  and 

Nevada  when  a  Territory. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  be 
and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claims  of  the 
States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory)  against  the  United 
States  for  interest  upon  loans  or  moneys  borrowed  and  actually  expended  by  them  for 
the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States  during  the  late  war  for  suppressing  insurrection 
and  rebellion,  and  also  on  account  of  Indian  hostilities  in  said  States  and  Territory. 

Sec.  2.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amounts  of  interest  as  aforesaid  due  the  States  of  Cali- 
fornia, Oregon,  and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory),  the  following  rules  shall  be 
understood  as  applicable  to  and  governing  the  cases,  to  wit : 

First — That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sums  which  California,  Oregon,  and 
Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory)  have  not  expended  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the 
United  States,  as  evidenced  by  the  amounts  refunded  or  repaid,  or  to  be  refunded  or  to  be 
repaid  to  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory)  by  the  United 
States. 

Second — That  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sums  on  which  they  have  not  paid  interest. 

T/wV(^— That  when  the  principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  paid  or  refunded  by  the 
United  States,  or  money  placed  in  the  hands  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada  (and 
Nevada  when  a  Territory)  for  that  purpose,  the  interest  on  the  sum  or  sums  so  paid  or 
refunded  shall  cease,  and  not  be  considered  as  chargeable  to  the  United  States  any  longer 
than  up  to  the  time  of  the  repayment  as  aforesaid. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  amounts  of  interest,  when  ascertained  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  out 
of  Siny  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

The  object  of  these  bills,  as  their  language  plainly  imports,  is  to  provide 
for  the  payment  of  interest  by  the  United  States  to  the  States  of  California, 
Oregon,  and  Nevada  (and  Nevada  when  a  Territory),  not  upon  the  whole 
amount  of  their  respective  advances  to  the  United  States  for  the  purposes 
mentioned,  but  on  that  part  only  of  such  advances  upon  ivhich  such  States 
^'paid  interest." 

The  limitation  sought  to  be  fixed  by  said  bills  on  the  extent  to  which 
the  United  States  should  admit  and  discharge  her  liability  for  interest  to 
these  States  so  advancing  her  money  is  derived  from  the  practice  of  the 
United  States  in  dealing  with  similar  cases  in  the  past. 

Said  practice,  having  been  uniformly  adopted  by  Congress  and  accepted 
by  the  individual  States  from  time  to  time  for  nearly  sixty  years,  properly 
measures  the  liability  of  the  United  States  on  account  of  interest  on  simi- 
lar advances  now  proposed  by  these  States,  and  forms  the  correct  and 
reasonable  basis  for  a  settlement  of  the  claims  arising  under  this  proposed 
legislation. 

The  reimbursement  Acts  of  1861  and  1862  provided  "that  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  be  and  he  is  hereby  directed,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treas- 
ury not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  pay  to  the  Governor  of  any  State,  or  to 


505 

his  duly  authorized  agents,  the  costs,  charges,  and  expenses  properly  incurred 
by  such  States  for  enrolling,  subsisting,  clothing,  supplying,  arming,  equip- 
ping, paying,  and  transporting  its  troops  employed  in  aiding  to  suppress 
the  present  insurrection  against  the  United  States,  to  be  settled  upon  proper 
vouchers,  to  be  filed  and  passed  upon  by  the  proper  accounting  officers  of 
the  Treasury." 

By  the  resolution  passed  March  8,  1862,  it  was  declared  that  the  provi- 
sions of  the  above  cited  Act  shall  be  construed  as  applying  to  such  expenses 
incurred  as  well  after  as  before  the  passage  of  said  Act. 

It  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  these  States  making  advances  of  money, 
as  contemplated  and  authorized  by  said  Acts  of  Congress,  understood  that 
they  were  to  be  reimbursed  the  amounts  paid  by  them,  respectively,  as 
interest  on  the  moneys  so  advanced  (and  which  were,  in  great  part,  bor- 
rowed by  them  for  the  purpose  of  such  advances),  for  it  is  seen  that  many 
vStates,  upon  the  passage  of  said  Acts  of  Congress,  proceeded  at  once  to 
borrow  on  obligations  of  their  own,  and  to  expend  the  money  thus  obtained 
for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States. 

These  .States,  in  making  such  advances  and  paying  interest  on  the  money 
advanced,  did  not  act  on  their  own  construction  of  said  reimbursement 
Acts  alone,  but  relied  on  the  interpretation  placed  thereon  by  the  honorable 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  his  official  correspondence  with  the  Auditor 
of  the  State  of  Ohio  with  reference  to  this  matter  of  interest.  Upon  the 
subject  of  the  liability  of  the  General  Government  on  account  of  such 
advances,  the  Hon.  Salmon  P.  Chase,  then  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  under 
date  of  July  29,  1861  (two  days  after  the  passage  of  said  reimbursement 
Act),  wrote  as  follows:  "As  to  the  'double  discount^  of  which  you  speak,  if 
Ohio  raised  money  by  loan  at  a  discount,  the  United  States  cannot,  of 
course,  refund  such  discount  to  the  States,  hut  only  the  amount  of  debt,  with 
interest,  unless  Congress  specially  provide  otherwise." 

The  only  reasonable  construction  of  this  language  is  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  considered  itself  authorized,  without  further  leg- 
islation, to  pay  ^Hhe  debt  with  interest.''^ 

Thus  it  appears  that  at  the  time  when  said  advances  were  being  made, 
there  seemed  to  be  no  doubt  entertained,  either  on  the  part  of  these  States 
or  the  Federal  Government,  that  the  scope  of  the  reimbursement  Acts  afore- 
said, then  just  passed,  embraced  not  only  the  moneys  expended  in  conform- 
ity therewith,  but  also  the  interest  paid  thereon. 

In  pursuance  of  this  construction  of  said  laws,  these  States  continued  to 
advance  money,  and  in  presenting  claims  for  the  reimbursement  of  the 
same,  accounts  containing  the  item  of  ^Hnterest  paid  "  will  not  be  allowed 
by  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Government. 

In  order  to  obtain  from  the  Treasury  Department  an  authoritative  and, 
if  possible,  a  more  favorable  decision  on  this  point,  on  the  seventh  day  of 
June,  1882,  the  attorneys  for  the  State  of  New  York  presented  a  formal 
demand  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for  the  amount  of  inter- 
est which  said  State  claimed  to  have  paid  on  money  advanced  for  the  use 
of  the  United  States  as  aforesaid. 

And  this  question,  on  said  date,  was  referred  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  the  United  States  Attorney-General  for  an  opinion. 

The  opinion  of  the  honorable  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States  as 
to  the  authority  for  the  payment  of  said  demand  without  further  legisla- 
tion was  obtained  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  in  conformity 
therewith  the  payment  demanded  was  declined,  upon  the  ground  that  it 
was  not  specifically  authorized. 

In  said  opinion,  however,  the  honorable  Attorney-General,  after  referring 


506 

to  divers  statutes  passed  by  Congress  to  authorize  specifically  the  payment 
of  interest  on  such  advances,  uses  the  following  language: 

Undoubtedly  the  interest  paid  by  the  State  of  New  York  on  money  borrowed  and  applied 
to  the  objects  specified  in  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  forms  part  of  the  burden  borne  by  that 
State  for  the  general  public  defense,  and  constiUites  a  just  charge  against  the  United  States; 
and  the  obligation  to  reimburse  for  payments  of  that  kind,  made  under  similar  circum- 
stances, has  frequently  been  recognized  by  Congress,  as  appears  by  statutes  above  cited. 

By  reason  of  said  decision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  these  States 
are  obliged  to  apply  to  Congress  for  the  legislation  necessary  to  ^^  expressly 
authorize  "  and  provide  for  the  payment  of  their  several  claims  for  the  sums 
by  them  respectively  expended  as  aforesaid.  In  this  connection  we  pass 
in  review,  briefly,  the  various  laws  enacted  from  time  to  time  to  provide 
for  the  payment  of  interest  due  to  the  different  States,  or  advances  by  them 
made  for  the  use  of  the  United  States  in  the  prosecution  of  all  the  different 
wars,  both  foreign  and  Indian,  from  the  time  of  the  war  with  Great  Britain 
in  1812  down  to  date. 

Congress  has  universally  paid  interest  to  the  States  where  they  have  paid 
interest.  We  cite  the  cases  where  interest  has  been  allowed  and  paid  for 
moneys  advanced  during  the  war  of  1812-15,  as  follows: 

The  first  Act  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  such  interest  was  passed 
March  3,  1825  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  4,  p.  132),  for  the  benefit  of  the  State  of 
Virginia;  next  for  the  benefit  of  Maryland,  May  13,  1826  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol. 
4,  p.  161);  then  for  Delaware,  May  20,  1826  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  4,  p.  175); 
then  for  the  City  of  Baltimore,  May  20,  1826  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  4,  p.  177); 
then  for  New  York,  May  22,  1826  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  4,  p.  192);  and  then  for 
Pennsylvania,  March  3,  1827  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  4,  p.  240);  next  for  South 
Carolina,  Act  March  22,  1832  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  4,  p.  499);  next  Massachu- 
setts and  Maine,  July  8,  1870  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  16,  p.  199). 

For  advances  for  Indian  and  other  wars  the  same  rule  has  been  observed 
in  the  following  cases:  Alabama,  Act  January  26,  1849  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p. 
344);  Georgia,  Act  March  31,  1851  (9  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  626);  Georgia,  Act 
March  3,  1879  (20  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  385);  Washington  Territory,  Act  March 
3,  1859  (11  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  429);  New  Hampshire,  Act  January  27,  1852 
(10  Stat.  atL.,p.  1). 

By  reference  to  these  Acts  it  will  be  observed  that  Senate  No.  320  and 
H.  R.  No.  109  are  substantially  a  transcript  of  them. 

The  Act  of  March  22,  1832  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  4),  was  the  first  that  was 
passed  providing  for  the  payment  to  a  State  of  any  interest,  except  such  as 
the  State  had  actually  paid;  the  object  of  said  Act,  as  set  forth  in  the  first 
section  thereof,  being  to  indemnify  South  Carolina  for  the  loss  of  interest 
on  money  "expended  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  etc.;  the  money  so 
expended  having  been  drawn  by  the  State  from  a  fund  upon  which  she 
was  then  receiving  interest  T 

The  provision  peculiar  to  said  last  mentioned  Act,  and  hereinbefore 
referred  to,  has  been  reenacted  in  every  statute  of  later  date  to  provide  for 
the  payment  of  interest  to  States  on  advances  of  the  character  of  those 
under  consideration. 

The  next  statute  upon  this  subject  is  that  of  June  2,  1848  (U.  S.  Stat., 
vol.  9,  p.  236),  and  which,  being  general  in  its  nature,  applied  to  all  the 
States  which  under  authority  of  the  resolution  of  March  3,  1847  (U.  S., 
vol.  9,  p.  207),  had  furnished  troops,  etc.,  for  service  in  the  Mexican  war. 

The  last  mentioned  statute  so  amended  the  said  resolution  of  March  3, 
1847,  as  to  materially  enlarge  its  scope  as  to  the  character  of  advances 
which  might  be  reimbursed,  and  as  to  the  sources  from  which  they  might 


507 

have  proceeded,  as  well  as  to  the  circumstances  and  conditions  under  which 
they  might  have  been  made.     By  it  provision  was  also  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  interest  on  advances  made   under   authority  of  the   resolution 
amended,  and  the  rate  fixed  at  six  per  cent  per  annum. 
Section  3  of  said  Act  is  as  follows: 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  refunding  moneys  under  this  Act  and  the  resolution 
which  it  amends,  it  shall  be  lawful  to  pay  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum 
on  all  sums  advanced  by  States,  corporations,  or  individuals,  in  all  cases  when  the  State,  corpo- 
ration, or  individual  paid  or  lost  interest  or  is  liable  to  pay  it. 

Thus,  it  will  be  observed,' that  under  said  Act,  as  amended,  reimburse- 
ment was  authorized,  not  only  of  advances  made  by  States  or  under  author- 
ity of  States,  but  also  advances  by  counties,  corporations,  or  individuals, 
either  acting  with  or  ivithout  the  authority  of  any  State. 

The  same  principle  was  observed  in  the  Act  of  January  26,  1849  (U.  S., 
vol.  9,  p.  344),  ^^Authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  upon  the  advances  made 
by  the  State  of  Alabama  for  the  use  of  the  United  States  Government  in  the 
suppression  of  the  Creek  Indian  hostilities  of  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-six 
and  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-seven,  in  Alabama^ 

In  the  Act  of  March  3,  1851  (U.  S.,  vol.  9,  p.  626),  "  To  authorize  the 
Secretary  of  War  to  allow  the  payment  of  interest  to  the  State  of  Georgia  for 
advances  made  for  the  use  of  the  United  States  in  the  suppression  of  hostilities 
of  the  Creeks,  Cherokee,  and  Seminole  Indians.''^ 

And  in  the  Act  of  the  same  date,  ^^Authorizing  the  payment  of  interest 
upon  the  advances  made  by  the  State  of  Maine,  for  the  use  of  the  United  States 
Government  in  the  protection  of  the  northeastern  frontier."  (U.  S.,  vol.  9,  p. 
626.) 

The  language  used  in  all  three  of  said  Acts  is  adopted  in  Senate  Bill  No. 
320,  and  in  House  Bill  No.  109. 

The  last  mentioned  Act  was  amended  by  that  of  August  31, 1852  (U.  S., 
vol.  9,  p.  109),  which  amendment  extended  the  operation  of  said  amended 
Act  so  as  to  cover  interest  for  other  years,  as  well  as  to  those  provided  for 
originally  in  said  Act;  and  again,  still  further  amendment  was  made  to 
said  Act  by  the  Act  of  June  12,  1858  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  11,  p.  333),  so  that 
discount  suffered,  as  well  as  'interest  paid  and  lost,"  was  authorized  to  be 
paid  to  said  State  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  9,  p.  126);  so,  too,  as  late  as  July  8, 
1870,  Congress  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  16,  p.  197)  provided  for  refunding  to  the 
State  of  Massachusetts  the  sum  of  $678,362,  for  interest  paid  by  said  State 
on  money  expended  by  her  in  1812  to  1815,  one  third  of  which  was  allowed 
to  the  State  of  Maine,  and  remaining  two  thirds  was  allowed  to  the  State 
of  Massachusetts. 

From  the  foregoing  review  of  the  legislation  on  the  subject  of  the  reim- 
bursement of  advances  made  by  the  individual  States  for  the  use  of  the 
United  States,  to  aid  in- the  public  defense,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  action 
of  the  General  Government  has,  in  all  such  cases,  been  uniform  and  just, 
though  sometimes  tardy;  and,  according  to  the  peculiar  conditions  of  each 
case,  Congress  has  always  dealt  fairly,  and  sometimes  even  generously, 
with  those  States  making  such  advances.  In  no  instance  has  the  United 
States  refused  to  pay  the  reasonable  demands  of  the  States  for  such  interest 
due  them;  and  while  she  has  never  made  any  effort  to  narrow  or  restrict 
the  operation  of  laws  which  authorize  reimbursement  of  moneys  so  advanced, 
on  the  other  hand,  in  order  to  effect  justice.  Congress  has  frequently,  and 
according  to  the  circumstances  affecting  the  case,  amended  Acts  authoriz- 
ing such  advances,  extending  their  scope,  and  liberalizing  their  provisions 
for  the  benefit  of  the  specific  States  interested.     There  being  abundant 


508 

precedent  for  the  legislation  proposed  in  Senate  No.  320  and  in  H.  R. 
No.  109,  and  its  object  being  obviously  just,  there  appears  no  reasonable 
ground  for  objection  to  its  present  enactment  in  this  case.  Moneys  were 
borrowed  by  these  States,  and  by  them  practically  loaned  to  the  United 
States,  under  the  provisions  of  laws  which,  in  the  instances  cited,  were  con- 
strued by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  at  the  time  such  advances  were 
being  made,  as  covering  interest  paid  by  the  States  for  such  moneys.  In 
accordance  with  the  construction  held  by  these  States  of  the  laws  under 
which  such  advances  were  made,  demands  for  the  interest  claimed  to  be 
due  them  will  be  refused  payment,  not  because  it  did  not  "  constitute  a  just 
charge  against  Ihe  United  States"  but  for  want  of  the  ^^  specific  authorization" 
which  this  bill  is  designed  to  give.  Therefore,  there  can  be  no  relief  for 
these  States  except  such  as  Congress  may  enact.  The  payment  of  such 
interest  will  be — first,  the  discharge  of  an  obligation  which,  in  the  language 
of  the  Attorney-General,  above  cited,  has  ^^  freguently  been  recognized  by  Con- 
gress" in  fact  has  been  invariably  so  recognized:  and,  second,  that  the 
rules  proposed  for  governing  the  computation  of  such  interest  are  those 
which  have  generally  been  adopted  by  Congress  in  similar  cases,  and  pro- 
poses nothing  to  which  legislative  sanction  has  not  been  frequently  here- 
tofore given.  Nor  is  there,  nor  can  there  possibly  be,  any  distinction  or 
discrimination  in  principle  made  by  Congress  between  those  States  which 
made  advances  out  of  their  own  Treasury  in  the  foreign  wars  between  the 
United  States  and  Mexico  in  1846  and  1847,  and  with  Great  Britain  in  1812 
and  1815,  and  during  the  civil  war  of  1861  and  1865,  and  those  States  which 
advanced  money  and  assumed  an  indebtedness  in  repelling  Indian  inva- 
sion and  suppressing  Indian  hostilities  within  their  own  respective  borders. 

Congress  has  never  yet  drawn  any  distinction  between  such  States  when 
refunding  either  the  principal  or  the  interest  in  any  such  cases.  That  the 
protection  of  the  several  States,  and  the  citizens  thereof,  from  Indian  hos- 
tilities is,  and  has  been  from  the  organization  of  the  Federal  Government, 
a  duty  and  a  charge  incumbent  on  the  United  States,  and  when,  in  the 
absence  of  such  protection,  the  States  themselves  have  made  necessary 
expenditures  for  this  purpose  they  should  be  reimbursed,  are  principles 
well  founded  in  law  and  justice,  and  fully  sanctioned  by  an  unbroken  line 
of  precedents. 

Congress  has  ever  recognized  its  obligations  to  refund  to  the  several  States 
this  class  of  debts,  as  shown  by  the  instances  hereinbefore  referred  to,  as 
well  as  in  the  other  instances  that  may  be  cited  as  follows,  to  wit: 

By  Act  approved  March  21,  1828,  the  Secretary  of  War  was  required  to 
pay  the  claims  of  the  militia  of  the  State  of  Illinois  and  the  Territory  of 
Michigan,  called  out  by  any  competent  authority,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
then  recent  Indian  disturbances,  and  that  the  expenses  incident  to  the 
expedition  should  be  settled  according  to  the  justice  of  the  claims.  (See 
Laws  of  United  States,  vol.  4,  p.  258.) 

By  Act  approved  July  2,  1836,  Captains  Smith,  Crawford,  Wallis,  and 
Long  of  the  militia  of  Missouri,  and  Captain  Sigler  of  the  Indiana  militia, 
were  paid  for  services  rendered  in  protection  of  those  States  against  Indians, 
and  an  appropriation  of  $4,300  was  made  for  that  purpose.  (See  U.  S. 
Stats.,  p.  71.) 

By  Act  approved  March  1,  1837,  an  appropriation  was  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  Tennessee  volunteers  called  out  by  the  proclamation  of  Gov- 
ernor Cannon  on  the  twenty-eighth  of  April,  1836,  to  suppress  Indian 
hostilities;  and  a  direct  appropriation  was  also  made  to  Governor  Cannon 
to  reimburse  him  for  moneys  expended  on  account  of  such  volunteers.  (See 
Laws  of  United  States,  vol.  5,  p.  150.) 


509 

By  Act  approved  July  7,  1838,  an  appropriation  was  made  to  the  State 
of  New  York  of  such  amount  as  should  be  found  due  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  and  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury,  out  of  the  appropriation 
for  the  prevention  of  hostilities  on  the  northern  frontier,  to  reimburse  the 
State  for  expenses  incurred  in  the  protection  of  the  frontier  to  the  pay  of 
volunteers  and  militia  called  into  service  by  the  Governor.  (See  5  U.  S. 
Stats.,  p.  268.) 

By  Act  approved  March  3,  1841,  a  direct  appropriation  was  made  to  the 
City  of  Mobile  for  advances  of  money  and  expenses  incurred  in  equipping, 
mounting,  and  sending  to  the  place  of  rendezvous  two  full  companies  of 
mounted  men,  under  a  call  from  the  Governor  of  Alabama,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  hostilities  of  the  Creek  Indians.     (See  Laws,  vol.  5,  p.  435.) 

By  an  Act  approved  June  14,  1842,  the  State  of  Maine  was  reimbursed 
for  the  expenses  of  the  militia,  called  into  service  by  the  Governor  for  the 
protection  of  the  northeastern  frontier.     (See  5  U.  S.  Stats.,  p.  490.) 

By  Act  of  August  11,  1842,  $175,000  was  appropriated  as  a  balance  for 
the  payment  and  indemnity  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  for  any  moneys  actu- 
ally paid  by  said  State  on  account  of  expenses  in  calling  out  her  militia 
during  the  Seminole,  Cherokee,  and  Creek  campaigns,  or  for  the  sup- 
pression of  Indian  hostilities  in  Florida  and  Alabama.  (See  Laws,  vol. 
5,  p.  504.)  By  Act  approved  August  29, 1842,  a  similar  appropriation  was 
made  to  the  State  of  Louisiana.     (See  Laws,  vol.  5,  p.  542.) 

There  was  appropriated  to  the  State  of  California,  by  Act  approved 
August  5,  1854,  the  sum  of  $924,259  65,  to  reimburse  the  State  for  expen- 
ditures "  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  within  the  State  prior  to 
the  first  day  of  January,  1854."     (See  U.  S.  Stats,  at  Large,  vol.  10,  p.  583.) 

Mr.  McDougal,  from  the  House  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  which 
had  the  bill  making  said  appropriation  referred  to  it,  made  a  report,  in 
which  it  is  said: 

The  question  remaining  for  consideration  is  whether  or  not  the  General  Government  is 
properly  chargeable  with  their  expenditures. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  this  committee  that  the  obligation  of  the  Federal  Government  to 
furnish  specific  and  particular  defense  to  each  several  State  is  included  in  its  obligation 
to  maintain  the  "common  defense"  of  the  Confederacy.  That  invasions  from  abroad, 
insurrections  at  home,  and  aggressions  from  the  savage  tribes  inhabiting  our  borders  are 
alike  within  the  protective  province  of  the  Federal  Government.  Congress  possesses  the 
exclusive  power  "to  raise  and  support  armies  in  time  of  peace,"  and  possesses  the  power 
to  call  forth  the  militia  "  to  suppress  insurrections  and  repel  invasions."  In  the  tenth 
section  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution  the  States  stipulate  that  they  will  not  "  keep 
troops  or  ships  of  war  in  time  of  peace." 

The  conclusion  necessarily  follows  that  the  General  Government  is,  by  the  implied,  if 
not  by  the  express  terms  of  the  Federal  compact,  bound  to  furnish  and  maintain  such 
military  force  as  the  exigencies  of  the  States  may  demand;  and  it  clearly  appears,  from 
the  legislative  history  of  Congress,  that  such  has  always  been  the  understanding  of  the 
Government. 

The  question  here  presented  appears  to  have  been  distinctly  raised  in  1831,  upon  a 
claim  presented  by  the  State  of  Missouri.  By  Act  approved  March  third,  of  that  year, 
Congress  made  an  appropriation  for  the  service  of  the  Missouri  militia  against  the  Indians, 
"provided  that  the  Secretary  of  War  shall,  upon  full  investigation,  be  satisfied  that  the 
United  States  are  liable  for  the  payment  of  said  militia,  under  the  second  paragraph  of 
the  tenth  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  See  U.  S. 
Stats.,  vol.  4,  p.  465.) 

General  Cass,  then  Secretary  of  "War,  examined  the  subject  submitted,  and  gave  the 
opinion  of  the  Government  as  to  its  constitutional  obligations,  affirming  the  liability  of 
the  Government,  and  directing  payment  to  be  made  to  the  State  of  Missouri. 

Instances  of  similar  legislation  might  be  cited,  but  it  is  believed  that  but  little  doubt  can 
exist  either  as  to  the  constitutional  obligation  or  the  exposition  given  by  Congressional 
legislation. 

By  the  Act  approved  June  21,  1860  (it  being  an  army  appropriation 
bill),  the  sum  of  $18,988  was  appropriated  to  reimburse  the  State  of  Iowa 


510 

for  the  expenses  of  militia  called  out  by  the  Governor  "to  protect  the 
frontier  from  Indian  incursions."     (See  12  U.  S.  Stats.,  p.  68.) 

By  the  same  Act  the  sum  of  $123,544  51  was  appropriated  to  the  State 
of  Texas  for  the  "  payment  of  volunteers  called  out  in  the  defense  of  the 
frontier  of  the  State  since  the  twenty-eighth  of  February,  1855." 

By  Act  approved  February  27, 1861,  there  was  appropriated  to  reimburse 
the  Territory  of  Utah  "  for  expenses  incurred  in  suppressing  Indian  hos- 
tilities in  said  Territory  in  the  year  1853"  the  sum  of  $53,512.  (See  12 
U.  S.  Stats.,  p.  151.)  This  bill  was  considered  by  the  House  Military 
Committee,  and  was  reported  by  Mr.  Stanton,  who,  in  his  report,  says: 

The  liability  of  the  Federal  Government  for  necessary  expenses  incurred  by  the  States 
and  Territories  in  repelling  invasions  of  their  territory  by  a  foreign  enemy,  or  of  hostile 
tribes  of  Indians  within  our  borders,  has  been  so  often  recognized  that  it  can  no  longer 
be  considered  an  open  question. 

The  committee  also  believe  that  the  action  of  the  State  and  Territorial  authorities  in 
calling  out  their  military  force  and  engaging  in  hostilities  furnished  at  least  prima  facie 
evidence  of  the  necessity  of  their  action. 

As  there  is  no  evidence  before  the  committee  tending  to  show  that  these  expenses  were 
unnecessarily  incurred,  the  committee  feel  bound  to  recognize  the  liability  of  the  claim. 

By  Act  approved  March  21,  1861,  the  State  of  California  had  appro- 
priated to  her  $400,000,  of  which,  on  June  25,  1863,  $229,981  67  was  paid 
on  account  to  defray  the  expenses  incurred  by  the  State  in  suppressing 
Indian  hostilities  for  the  years  1854,  1855,  1856,  1858,  and  1859.  (See  12 
U.  S.  Stats.,  p.  199.) 

Mr.  Stanton,  from  the  House  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  June  22, 
1860,  reported  this  bill,  and  in  his  report  says: 

The  liability  of  the  Federal  Government  to  indemnify  a  State  or  Territory  for  expenses 
necessarily  incurred  in  protecting  their  citizens  against  a  public  enemy  in  their  own 
midst,  has  been  repeatedly,  if  not  uniformly,  recognized  by  Congress.  Your  committee, 
towever,  are  of  opinion  that  before  the  Federal  Government  should  assume  liabilities  of 
this  character  it  ought  to  be  satisfactorily  shown  not  only  that  a  necessity  existed  for 
calling  the  military  forces  into  service,  but  that  the  expenditures  have  been  reasonable  in 
amount,  and  have  not  been  improvidently  incurred. 

By  the  "Act  making  appropriations  for  the  sundry  civil  expenses  of  the 
Government  for  the  year  ending  June,  1864,  and  for  other  purposes,"  an 
appropriation  was  made  "  to  pay  the  Governor  of  the  State  of  Minnesota, 
or  his  duly  authorized  agent,  the  costs,  charges,  and  expenses  properly 
incurred  by  said  States  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities  within  said  State 
and  upon  its  borders  in  the  year  1862,  not  exceeding  $250,000,  to  be  settled 
upon  proper  vouchers  to  be  filed  and  passed  upon  by  the  proper  accovmting 
officers  of  the  Treasury."     (See  12  U.  S.  Stats.,  p.  754.) 

In  the  sundry  civil  bill  of  the  following  year  an  appropriation  of  the  sum 
of  $117,000  was  made  to  the  same  State  "to  supply  a  deficiency  in  the 
appropriation  for  the  costs,  charges,  and  expenses  properly  incurred  by  the 
State  of  Minnesota  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities  in  the  year  1862." 
(See  13  U.  S.  Stats.,  pp.  350,  351.) 

By  Act  approved  May  28,  1864,  the  sum  of  $928,411  was  appropriated 
for  the  payment  of  damages  sustained  by  citizens  of  Minnesota  "  by  reason 
of  the  depredations  and  injuries  by  certain  bands  of  Sioux  Indians." 
(See  13  U.  S.  Stats.,  p.  92.) 

By  Act  of  January  6,  1883,  "  to  reimburse  the  States  of  Oregon  and  Cali- 
fornia, and  citizens  thereof,  for  moneys  paid  by  said  States  in  the  suppres- 
sion of  Indian  hostilities  during  the  Modoc  war  in  1872-73."  (U.  S.  Stats., 
vol.  22,  p.  399.) 

And  finally,  by  the  Act  of  June  27,  1882,  "to  authorize  the  Secretary  of 


511 

the  Treasury  to  examine  and  report  to  Congress  the  amount  of  all  claims 
of  the  States  of  Texas,  Colorado,  Oregon,  Nebraska,  California,  Kansas, 
Nevada,  and  Territories  of  Washington  and  Idaho  for  money  expended  and 
indebtedness  assumed  by  said  States  and  Territories  in  repelling  invasions 
and  suppressing  Indian  hostilities,  and  for  other  purposes."  (U.  S.  Stats., 
vol.  22,  page  111.) 

The  legislative  precedents  clearly  establish  the  fact  that  the  United  States 
have  uniformly  assumed  the  payment  of  expenditures  made  by  the  States 
in  repelling  Indian  invasions  and  suppressing  Indian  hostilities. 

The  United  States  should  therefore  refund  to  the  States  of  California, 
Oregon,  and  Nevada,  7mnc  pro  tunc,  the  amounts  that  said  States,  respect- 
ively, may  have  actually  expended  as  interest;  an  obligation  made  the 
more  imperative  in  their  cases,  due  to  the  fact  that  their  frontiers  were 
exposed  to  Indian  invasion  and  Indian  hostilities,  which  the  United  States 
could  not  then  promptly  suppress,  owing  to  the  long  distances  of  the  seat 
of  war  from  the  seat  of  the  War  Department,  and  the  inadequate  military 
force  of  the  United  States  in  those  States  at  the  date  when  such  expenses 
were  paid  by  said  States  necessarily  incurred. 

And  this  obligation  will  not  be  in  the  least  diminished  by  the  further 
fact  that  those  States  had  to  borrow  money  at  short  notice,  in  order  to  liqui- 
date pressing  demands  and  meet  their  obligations  to  their  own  citizens,  who 
had  to  abandon  their  lucrative  civil  employment  in  order  to  perform  a  mil- 
itary duty,  which,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  of  said 
States,  the  United  States  had  obligated  itself  to  perform,  but  which  the 
United  States  failed  to  perform,  due  to  the  causes  hereinbefore  stated.  The 
principles  hereinbefore  discussed  have  also  been  fully  set  before  you  by 
Hon.  John  T.  Heard,  State  a^ent  for  Missouri,  and  Hon.  W.  W.  Wilshire, 
State  agent  for  Arkansas,  in  support  of  H.  R.  2463,  which  bill,  however,  is 
limited  to  cases  arising  during  the  late  war  of  the  rebellion. 

Wherefore,  in  conclusion,  I  now  respectfully  request  that  either  of  said 
bills  (Senate  No.  320  or  H.  R.  No.  109)  may  be  enacted  into  a  law  for  the 
benefit  of  the  States  therein  named. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

JOHN  MULLAN, 

Agent  and  Attorney  for  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada. 

Appended  hereto  are  some  of  the  more  important  Acts  of  Congress  relat- 
ing to  this  subject,  and  hereinbefore  several  times  referred  to,  and  given  at 
length  in  order  that  your  honorable  committees  may  have  before  them  for 
easy  reference  this  class  of  legislation,  and  also  full  copies  of  the  opinion  of 
the  United  States  Attorney-General,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  other 
officials  referred  to  in  the  foregoing  argument,  and  as  follows,  to  wit : 

[Copy.l 
Department  of  Justice,  Washington,  D.  C,  July  23,  1883. 
Hon.  Charles  J.  Folger,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  : 

Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  seventh  of  June,  1882,  and  the  papers  which  accompanied  it,  pre- 
sent for  my  consideration  the  following  question,  whether  the  claim  of  the  State  of  New 
York  for  interest  paid  by  that  State  on  money  borrowed  and  expended  in  enrolling,  sub- 
sisting, clothing,  etc.,  its  troops  employed  to  aid  in  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion,  is 
within  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  July  27, 1861,  entitled  "An  Act  to  indemnify  the  States 
for  expenses  incurred  by  them  in  defense  of  the  United  States."  Delay  in  answering  this 
question  has  been  occasioned  mainly  by  the  demands  from  time  to  time  of  other  business 
that  seemed  to  require  immediate  attention.  I  have  now  the  honor  to  submit  my  views 
thereon. 

The  Act  of  July  27, 1861,  provides :  "  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be,  and  is  hereby 
directed,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  pay  to  the  Gov- 


512 

ernor  of  any  State,  or  to  his  duly  authorized  agents,  the  costs,  charges,  and  expenses, 
properly  incurred  by  such  State  for  enrolling,  subsisting,  clothing,  supplying,  arming, 
equipping,  paying,  and  transporting  its  troops,  employed  in  aiding  to  suppress  the  present 
insurrection  against  the  United  States,  to  be  settled  upon  proper  vouchers  to  be  filed  and 
passed  upon  by  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury." 

By  a  resolution  passed  March  8,  1862,  the  above  provision  is  to  be  construed  to  apply  to 
expenses  incurred  as  well  after  as  before  the  date  of  the  approval  thereof. 

Under  this  legislation  the  State  of  New  York  has  already  been  reimbursed  the  amount 
of  monej'^  which  was  expended  by  it  for  the  objects  specified  in  the  Act  of  1861,  exclusive 
of  interest  paid  on  money  so  expended,  all  of  which  the  State  was  compelled  to  borrow. 
Such  interest  formed  an  item  in  the  account  rendered  by  the  State,  but  was  not  allowed 
in  the  adjustment  thereof  made  at  the  Treasury,  the  accounting  officers  not  regarding  it 
as  admissible  under  the  statute.  On  the  part  of  the  State,  however,  it  is  urged  that  the 
interest  mentioned  properly  constitutes  a  part  of  the  costs,  charges,  and  expenses,  incurred 
for  the  objects  above  referred  to  within  the  meaning  of  said  Act. 

According  to  the  construction  originally  adopted,  and  thus  far  uniformly  acted  upon  in 
settling  the  claims  of  States  under  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  the  provisions  thereof  extend 
only  to  such  outlay  by  the  State  as  were  made  directly  and  specifically  on  account  of  "  enroll- 
ing, subsisting,  clothing,  supplying,  arming,  equipping,  paying,  and  transporting  its 
troops."  And  as  payments  made  by  the  State  on  account  of  interest  upon  a  loan  to  it  of 
the  money  thus  expended,  though  the  expenses  incurred  for  those  objects  were  indirectly 
and  in  a  general  way  augmented  thereby,  are  not  strictly  outlays  of  the  above  character. 
Such  payments  do  not  come  within  the  scope  of  the  Act.  This  interpretation  accords 
with  that  which  prevailed  in  the  execution  of  similar  provisions,  under  which  States  were 
reimbursed  for  advances  made  by  them  during  the  war  of  1812  and  other  subsequent  wars. 

By  the  Act  of  April  29,  1816  (chapter  160),  an  appropriation  was  made  ''for  defraying  the 
expenses  incurred  by  calling  out  the  militia  during  the  late  war,"  in  addition  to  the  sums 
theretofore  appropriated  to  that  object,  which  was  applied  to  the  reimbursement  of  States 
for  advances  to  meet  such  expenses.  By  the  Act  of  March  3,  1817  (chapter  86),  an  appro- 
priation was  made  "  for  the  payment  of  balances  due  to  certain  States  on  account  of  dis- 
laursements  for  militia  employed  in  the  service  of  the  United  States  during  the  late  war." 
And  by  the  Act  of  April  20,  1818  (chapter  109),  an  appropriation  was  made  "for  the  paj^- 
ment  of  balances  due  several  States,  on  an  adjustment  of  their  accounts,  for  expenses 
incurred  by  calling  out  the  militia  during  the  war."  Although  in  each  of  these  provisions 
very  general  and  comprehensive  terms  were  employed,  yet  they  were  not  construed  to 
authorize  the  reimbursements  of  expenditures  made  by  the  States  on  account  of  interest,, 
and  no  claims  for  such  expenditures  were  allowed  thereunder.  Congress  subsequently 
provided  for  these  claims  hy  special  legislation  (thus  impliedly  recognizing  the  construc- 
tion given  the  general  provisions  as  above),  and  presented  certain  rules  for  their  adjust- 
ment (see  Act  of  March  3,  1825,  chapter  106;  May  13,  1826,  chapter  39;  Mav  20,  1826,  chap- 
ter 77;  May  22,  1826,  chapter  151;  March  3,  1827,  chapter  79;  March  22.  1832,  chapter  57). 
So  by  the  Act  of  August  11, 1842  (chapter  127),  an  amount  was  appropriated  "to  the  pay- 
ment and  indemnity  of  the  State  of  Georgia  for  any  money  actuallj'^  paid  by  said  State  on 
account  of  necessary  and  proper  expenses  incurred  by  said  State  in  calling  out  her  militia 
during  the  Seminole,  Cherokee,  and  Creek  campaigns,  in  the  years  1835  to  1838."  And  by 
the  Act  of  August  16,  1842  (chapter  178),  the  Secretary  was  directed  to  audit  and  adjust 
the  claims  of  the  State  of  Alabama  "for  moneys  advanced  and  paid  by  said  State  for  sub- 
sistence, supplies,  and  services  of  local  troops  called  into  service  by  and  under  the  author- 
ities of  said  States,  etc.,"  during  Creek  and  Seminole  hostilities.  Under  neither  of  these 
Acts  were  allowances  made  for  advances  on  account  of  interest.  But  by  Act  of  January 
26,  1849  (chapter  25),  in  the  case  of  Alabama,  and  by  Act  of  March  3,  1851  (chapter  35),  in 
the  case  of  Georgia,  Congress  made  special  provision  for  such  allowances,  under  rules  and 
according  to  rates  there  prescribed. 

By  a  resolution  of  Congress,  passed  March  3,  1847,  provision  was  made  for  refunding  to 
the  several  States,  etc.,  "the  amount  of  expenses  incurred  by  them  in  organizing,  subsist- 
ing, and  transporting  volunteers  previous  to  their  being  mustered  and  received  into  the 
service  of  the  United  States"  for  the  Mexican  war.  This  provision,  it  would  seem,  was 
not  regarded  as  authorizing  reimbursement  for  interest  paid  on  moneys  expended  for 
those  purposes,  since  it  was  apparently  deemed  necessary,  in  order  to  authorize  such  reim- 
bursements, to  provide  therefor  by  further  legislation,  which  is  found  in  the  amendatory 
Act  of  June  2,  1848,  chap.  60.  Undoubtedly  the  interest  paid  by  the  State  of  New  York  on 
money  borrowed  and  applied  to  the  objects  specified  in  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  forms  a 
part  of  the  burden  borne  by  that  State  for  the  general  public  defense,  and  constitutes  a 
just  charge  against  the  United  States;  and  the  obligations  to  reimburse  for  payments  of 
that  kind,  made  under  similar  circumstances,  has  frequently  been  recognized  by  Congress, 
as  appears  by  statutes  above  cited.  But  to  construe  the  provision  of  that  Act  so  as  to 
include  such  expenditures,  would  be  giving  them  a  meaning  much  broader  than  that 
which  has  in  practice  been  given  other  legislation  of  like  character  and  purpose,  or  that 
seems  to  be  warranted  by  any  sound  rule  of  interpretation.  When  a  payment  from  the 
Treasury  is  claimed  under  a  statute,  the  payment,  in  order  to  be  allowed,  should  appear 
to  be  authorized,  either  expressly  or  by  very  clear  implication,  (9  Opin.,  59).  The  language 
of  the  Act  under  consideration,  viewed  with  reference  to  claims  based  upon  expenditures 
for  interest,  does  not  satisfy  that  requirement;  for  while  no  authority  to  reimburse  the 
States  for  interest  paid  by  them  is  expressly  conferred  thereby,  such  authority  is  not 
clearly  to  be  implied  therefrom. 


513 

Indeed,  the  absence  of  any  provision  in  the  Act  expressly  authorizing  reimbursement 
for  interest  rather  gives  rise  to  the  imphcation  that  such  reimbursement  was  not  meant 
to  be  allowed  thereunder ;  as  in  other  similar  cases  reimbursement  for  interest  has  gener- 
allv  been  made  the  subject  of  express  authorization  where  Congress  intended  its  allowance. 
t  am  accordingly  of  the  opinion  that  the  claim  of  the  State  of  New  York,  referred  to  in 
the  question  submitted,  does  not  come  within  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  July  27, 1861. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

BENJAMIN  HARRIS  BREWSTER, 

Attorney-General. 

Office  of  the  Auditor  of  State,  Columbus,  Ohio,  July  25, 1861. 
Hon.  S.  P.  Chase,  Secretary,  Washington : 

Sir:  Yesterday  I  sent  you  a  dispatch  inquiring  whether  Government  would  refund  to 
the  State  a  portion  of  the  expenditures  for  organizing,  clottilng,  subsisting,  and  equipping 
troops  for  Government  services  without  requiring  accounts  to  be  audited  and  allowed,  the 
payment  to  be  subject  to  future  adjustment. 

The  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund  have  advertised  a  loan,  which,  or  the  greater 
part  of  which,  may  be  withdrawn  from  market  if  the  Government  can  pay  the  State  money 
on  account,  and  hereinafter  pass  upon  items.  If  the  accounts  must  first  be  audited  and 
allowed,  the  time  necessary  for  that  purpose  will  delay  the  receipt  of  money  and  make 
it  necessary  for  the  State  to  obtain  it  by  loan.  If  possible  this  should  be  avoided,  and 
the  double  discount  which  will  be  inevitable  if  the  State  borrows  and  then  the  Govern- 
ment to  repay  the  State.  Our  loan  is  advertised  for  August  seventh,  in  New  York,  at 
which  time  it  will  be  necessary  that  some  arrangement  for  money  for  immediate  use  shall 
have  been  made.  If  the  Government  can,  in  the  way  suggested,  pay  $150,000  to  $200,000 
per  week,  the  State  can  satisfy  the  demands  upon  her  without  being  compelled  to  borrow, 
unless  temporarily.  In  case  you  should  be  able  to  refund  in  advance  of  audited  accounts, 
such  vouchers  or  acknowledgment  as  you  may  desire  will  be  given,  I  wish,  however, 
that  it  be  distinctly  understood  that  Ohio  will  not  so  press  for  money  as  in  any  sense  to 
embarrass  you. 

I  know  nothing  about  the  condition  of  the  Treasury,  and  must  not  be  regarded  as 
importuning  you  to  do  what  may  be  inconsistent  with  a  due  regard  for  more  pressing  lia- 
bilities. 

I  am,  very  respectfully, 

R.  W.  TAYLER,  Auditor. 

Treasury  Department,  July  29,  1861. 

My  Dear  Sir:  Yours  of  the  twenty-fifth,  making  inquiry  in  regard  to  the  refunding  of 
State  expenditures  for  organizing,  clothing,  subsisting,  and  equipping  of  troops,  is  received. 
If  you  will  accept  Treasury  notes  in  payment,  the  expenditures  of  Ohio  will  be  repaid  pro 
rata,  as  those  of  Indiana  have  been,  upon  the  statements  of  the  Governor  and  State  offi- 
cers, leaving  the  accounts  to  be  audited  hereafter.  It  will  be  impossible  to  advance  the 
coin  at  present.  As  to  the  "double  discount"  of  which  you  speak,  if  Ohio  raises  money 
by  loan,  at  a  discount,  the  United  States  cannot  refund  such  discount  to  the  State,  but 
only  the  amount  of  the  debt,  with  interest,  unless  Congress  specially  provide  otherwise. 

Yours,  very  truly, 

S.  P.  CHASE. 

Hon.  R.  W.  Tayler,  Auditor  of  the  State  of  Ohio. 

AN  ACT 
Authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  due  to  the  State  of  Virginia. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  be 
and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claim  of  the  State 
of  Virginia  against  the  United  States  for  interest  upon  loans  or  moneys  borrowed  and 
actually  expended  by  her  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States  during  the  late  war 
with  Great  Britain. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  as  afore- 
said due  to  the  State  of  Virginia,  the  following  rules  shall  be  understood  as  applicable  to 
and  governing  the  case,  to  wit:  First — That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum 
which  Virginia  has  not  expended  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as  evidenced 
by  the  amount  refunded  or  repaid  to  Virginia  by  the  United  States ;  Second— "Y^lmxt  no  inter- 
est shall  be  paid  on  any  sum  on  which  she  has  not  paid  interest;  Third — That  when  the 
principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  paid  or  refunded  by  the  United  States,  or  money 
placed  in  the  hands  of  Virginia  for  that  purpose,  the  interest  on  the  sum  or  sums  so  paid, 
or  refunded  shall  cease  and  not  be  considered  as  chargeable  to  the  United  States  any  longer 
than  up  to  the  time  of  the  repayment  as  aforesaid. 

Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  amount  of  the  interest,  when  ascertained  as 
aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasurv  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

Approved  March  3, 1825  (  U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  4,  p.  132). 

33  "* 


514 

AN  ACT 

For  the  adjustment  and  settlement  of  the  claims  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  against  the  United 

States. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatixes  of  the  United  States,  in  Congress 
assembled,  That  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  be  and  they  are  hereby 
authorized  and  directed  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claim  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina 
against  the  United  States  for  interest  upon  money  actually  expended  by  her  for  military 
stores  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States  and  on  account  of  her  militia  whilst  in 
the  service  of  the  United  States  during  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain;  the  money  so 
expended  having  been  drawn  by  the  State  from  a  fund  upon  which  she  was  then  receiving  interest. 

Sec.  2.    And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  to  be  paid 
as  aforesaid  to  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  interest  shall  be  computed  upon  sums  expended 
by  the  State  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States  as  aforesaid,  and  which  have  been  • 
or  shall  be  repaid  to  South  Carolina  by  the  United  States. 

Approved  March  22,  1832  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  4,  p.  499). 

AN   ACT 

To  refund  money  for  expenses  incurred,  subsistence  and  transportation  furnished,  for  the  use  of 
volunteers  during  the  present  war  before  being  mustered  into  the  service  of  the  United  States. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  Hoxise  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled.  That  the  provisions' of  the  joint  resolution  approved  March  3,  1847, 
entitled  "A  resolution  to  refund  money  to  the  States  which  have  supplied  volunteers  and 
furnished  them  transportation  during  the  present  war  before  being  mustered  and  received 
into  the  service  of  the  United  States,"  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  extended  so  as  to  em- 
brace all  cases  of  expenses  heretofore  incurred  in  organizing,  subsisting,  and  transporting 
volunteers  previous  to  their  being  mustered  and  received  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  for  the  present  war,  whether  by  States,  counties,  corporations,  or  individuals,  either 
acting  with  or  without  the  authority  of  the  State ;  provided,  however,  that  proof  shall  be 
made  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  amount  thus  expended  and  that 
the  same  was  necessary  and  proper  for  the  troops  aforesaid. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  an  amount  sufficient  to  refund  said  expenses  so 
incurred  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated. 

Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  in  refunding  moneys  under  this  Act  and  the  reso- 
lution which  it  amends,  it  shall  be  lawful  to  pay  interest  at  "the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per 
annum  on  all  sums  advance  [advanced]  by  States,  corporations,  or  individuals,  in  all  cases 
where  the  State,  corporation,  or  individual  paid  or  lost  the  interest,  or  is  liable  to  pay  it. 

Approved  June  2,  1848  (U.  S.  Stat,  vol.  9,  p.  236). 

AN  ACT 

Authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  upon  the  advances  made  by  the  State  of  Alabama  for  the  use 
of  the  United  States  Goveriiment  in  the  suppression  of  the  Creek  Indian  hostilities  of  eighteen 
hundred  and  thirty-six  and  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-seven. 

Be  it  enacted,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled.  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be  and  he  is  hereby  directed  to  pay  interest 
upon  the  advances  made  by  the  State  of  Alabama  for  the  use  of  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment for  the  suppression  of  hostilities  by  the  Creek  Indians  in  1836  and  1837  at  the 
rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum  from  the  time  of  the  advances  until  the  principal  sum 
was  paid  by  the  United  States  to  the  State  of  Alabama;  and  the  sum  so  found  to  be  due 
to  said  State  to  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

Sec  2.  Be  it  further  enacted.  That  in  "ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  as  aforesaid 
due  to  the  State  of  Alabama,  the  following  rules  shall  govern :  That  interest  shall  not  be 
computed  on  any  sum  which  Alabama  has  not  expended  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the 
United  States,  asevidenced  by  the  amount  refunded  or  repaid  to  the  State  of  Alabama  by 
the  United  States ;  second,  that  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sum  which  the  said  State 
of  Alabama  did  not  either  pay  or  lose  interest  as  aforesaid. 

Approved  January  26, 1849  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  9,  p.  344). 

AN   ACT 

To  authorize  the  Secretary  of  War  to  allow  the  payment  of  interest  to  the  State  of  Georgia  for 
advances  made  for  the' %ise  of  the  United  States  in  the  suppression  of  the  hostilities  of  the 
Creek,  Seminole,  and  Cherokee  Indians,  in  the  years  of  1836,  and  1837,  and  1838. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  to  allow 
to  the  State  of  Georgia,  for  advances  made  to  the  United  States  for  the  suppression  of  the 
hostilities  of  the  Creek,  Seminole,  and  Cherokee  Indians,  in  the  years  1835,  1836,  1837,  and 
1838,  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent  per  annum  upon  all  sums  allowed  and  paid  to  the 
State  of  Georgia,  or  that  may  hereafter  be  allowed  and  paid  for  any  moneys  advanced  by  the 
State  for  the  purpose  aforesaid  from  the  date  of  such  advances  until  the  principal  sum  or 


515 

sums  were  or  may  be  paid  by  the  United  States ;  provided,  that  no  interest  shall  be  paid 
on  anv  sum  on  which  the  said  State  of  Georgia  did  not  either  jjay  or  lose  interest. 
Approved  March  3,  1851  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  9,  p.  626). 

AN  ACT 

Authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  upon  the  advances  made  by  the  State  of  Maine  for  the  use 
of  the  United  States  Government  in  the  protection  of  the  northeastern  frontier. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled.  That  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  be  and  they  are 
hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  liquidate  and  settle  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Maine 
against  the  agent  of  the  United  States  for  interest  upon  money  borrowed  and  actually 
expended  by  her  for  the  protection  of  the  northeastern  frontier  of  said  State  during  the 
years  1839,  1840,  and  1841,  and  the  sum  so  found  to  be  due  said  State  shall  be  paid  out  of 
any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  as 
aforesilid  due  to  the  State  of  Maine,  the  following  rules  shall  govern:  First,  that  interest 
shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  Maine  has  not  expended  for  the  use  and  benefit 
of  the  United  States,  as  evidenced  by  the  amount  refunded  or  repaid  to  the  State  of 
Maine  by  the  United  States ;  second,  that  no  interest  shall  be  paid  on  any  sum  on  which 
the  said  State  of  Maine  did  not  either  pay  or  lose  interest  as  aforesaid. 

Approved  March  3,  1851  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  9,  p.  626). 

AN  ACT 

Providing  for  refunding  the  interest  paid  by  the  State  of  Massachusetts  on  money  expended  by 
her  on  account  of  the  war  of  1812  to  1815. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and,  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  there  be  allowed  on  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  for 
interest  paid  by  her  on  money  expended  by  said  State  on  account  of  the  war  with  Great 
Britain  in  1812  to  1815,  the  sum  of  $678,362  41,  in  full  of  said  claim ;  and  whereas,  hj  an 
arrangement  made  by  the  said  State  of  Massachusetts  and  the  State  of  Maine,  at  the  time 
of  their  separation  in  1820,  the  said  State  of  Maine  becomes  the  owner  of  one  third  of  this 
claim ;  and  whereas,  both  of  said  States  have  assigned  their  respective  interests  in  said  claim 
to  the  European  and  North  American  Railway  Company  of  Maine,  to  aid  said  company  in 
■constructing  its  line  of  railway,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  hereby  authorized  and 
directed  to  pay  one  third  part  of  the  said  claim  of  $678,362  41  to  the  State  of  Maine,  and 
the  other  two  thirds  part  thereof  to  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  by  an  issue  to  each  of 
said  States,  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  said  European  and  North  American  Railway  Com- 
pany, of  an  amount  of  United  States  certificates  of  indebtedness  equal  to  its  share  in  the 
whole  sum  allowed  and  to  be  paid ;  said  certificates  to  be  of  the  denomination  of  $1,000 
each,  to  be  made  and  issued  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  such  form,  and  signed, 
attested,  and  registered  as  he  shall  direct,  and  with  or  without  interest  warrants,  as  he 
may  prefer.  Each  certificate  to  run  five  years  from  its  date,  to  draw  interest  payable 
semi-annually,  at  the  rate  of  four  per  centum  per  annum,  and  to  be  payable,  both  prin- 
cipal and  interest,  in  lawful  money  of  the  United  States,  to  be  hereafter  appropriated  and 
provided  for  by  Congress. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  the  acceptance  by  the  said  States  of  Massa- 
chusetts and  Maine,  and  the  said  European  and  North  American  Railway  Company  of 
the  amount  hereby  authorized  to  be  paid  to  each  of  said  States  for  the  use  and  benefit  of 
said  railway  company,  shall  be  held  and  regarded  as  a  full  adjustment  and  payment  of 
any  and  all  claims  for  interest  as  aforesaid,  and  also  a  complete  adjustment,  liquidation, 
and  payment  of  any  and  all  other  claims  of  the  said  States  of  Massachusetts  and  Maine, 
and  of  said  railway  company,  or  either  of  them,  against  the  United  States  for  and  on 
account  of  any  matters  arising  from  any  money  expended  by  said  State  of  Massachusetts 
on  account  of  the  war  with  Great  Britain  in  1812  to  1815,  or  any  interest  thereon,  or  on 
account  of  any  matters  arising  out  of  or  accruing  from  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain, 
known  as  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  or  for  or  on  account  of  any  other  matters  which 
have  been  assigned  by  said  States  of  Massachusetts  and  Maine  to  said  railway  company. 

Approved  July  8,  1870  (U.  S.  Stat.,  vol.  16,  p.  197). 


EXHIBIT  No.  6. 

Hon. : 

My  Dear  Sir:  Permit  me  to  ask  your  attention  to  the  provisions  of  H. 
B.  2463,  the  object  of  which  is  to  authorize  the  reimbursement  of  the  dif- 
ferent States,  for  the  amounts  they  respectively  paid  out,  as  interest,  on  the 
moneys  they  expended  for  the  use  of  the  Government,  during  the  late  war. 
The  State  of having  advanced  to  the  Government  for  the  purposes 


516 

above  mentioned,  the  sum  of  $ ,  almost  every  dollar  of  which  she  bor- 
rowed and  paid  interest  on,  is,  therefore,  materially  interested  in  the  pas- 
sage of  said  bill. 

The  character  of  the  proposed  legislation  is,  in  no  sense,  new  or  unusual; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  in  perfect  accord  with  the  practice  of  the  Govern- 
ment for  more  than  sixty  years,  beginning  with  the  Act  of  March  3,  1825, 
for  the  benefit  of  Virginia,  and  continuing  through  numerous  Acts,  to  that 
of  March  3,  1881,  for  the  benefit  of  California. 

Until  recently,  the  States  interested  relied  on  getting  their  money  under 
the  Reimbursement  Act  of  July  27,  1861. 

Said  Act  provides  for  reimbursing  the  States  for  all  '^costs,  charges,  and 
expenses  incurred,^^  etc.,  for  the  purposes  therein  mentioned;  and  two  days 
after  its  passage  (July  29,  1861) ,  Mr.  Chase,  then  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
in  an  official  communication  addressed  to  the  State  Auditor  of  Ohio,  on  the 
subject  of  the  liability  of  the  Government  to  the  States,  under  said  Act, 
thus  interpreted  the  same: 

If  Ohio  raises  money  by  loan  at  a  discount,  the  United  States  cannot  refund  such  dis- 
count to  the  State,  but  only  the  amount  of  the  debt  with  interest,  unless  Congress  specially 
provide  otherwise.    (See  report  of  Auditor  of  Ohio,  1861,  p.  — .) 

Relying  on  this  construction  of  the  law,  the  States  did,  since  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  last  Congress,  make  demand  for  the  payment  of  such  interest, 
selecting  the  claim  of  the  State  of  New  York,  on  which  to  test  the  question. 

The  matter  being  submitted  to  the  Attorney-General  for  his  opinion,  such 
opinion  was  announced  on  July  23,  1883;  and  while  it  advised  in  favor  of 
requiring  more  specific  authority  for  the  payment  demanded,  it  contained 
the  following  language: 

Undoubtedly,  the  interest  paid  by  the  State  of  New  York  on  money  borrowed  and 
applied  to  the  objects  specified  in  the  Act  of  July  27, 1861,  forms  a  part  of  the  burden  borne 
by  that  State  for  the  general  public  defense,  and  constitutes  a  just  charge  against  the 
United  States. 

In  thus  stating  the  liability  of  the  Government,  he  adopts  the  views  of 
two  of  his  most  distinguished  predecessors — Attorneys-General  Wm.  AVirt, 
and  John  J.  Crittenden. 

Discussing  the  Act  of  March  3, 1825,  to  pay  interest  to  Virginia,  Mr. 
Wirt  says: 

The  expenditure  thus  incurred  forms  a  debt  against  the  United  States  which  they  are 
bound  to  reimburse.  If  the  expenditures  made  for  such  purpose  are  supplied  from  the 
Treasury  of  the  State,  the  United  States  reimburse  the  principal  without  interest;  but  if 
being  unable  itself,  from  the  condition  of  its  own  finances,  to  meet  the  emergency,  such 
State  has  been  obliged  to  borrow  money  for  the  purpose,  and  thus  to  incur  a  debt  on 
which  she  herself  has  had  to  pay  interest,  such  debt  is  essentially  a  debt  due  by  the  United 
States,  and  both  the  principal  and  interest  are  to  be  paid  by  the  United  States.  (See 
Opinions  of  Attorneys-General,  vol.  1,  page  174.) 

Attorney-General  Crittenden,  in  construing  the  Act  of  twenty-seventk 
February,  1851,  "for  reimbursing  Florida,"  uses  the  following  language: 

The  Act  of  twenty-seventh  of  February,  1851,  is  intended  to  indemnify  the  State  against 
loss  or  damage.  Reimbursing  means  repairing  the  loss  or  expenses  by  an  equivalent.  If 
the  State  of  Florida  has  contracted  obligations  bearing  interest,  or  has  paid  money,  with 
interest,  for  the  use  and  benefit,  in  necessary  and  proper  supplies  for  the  troops  called  into 
service  in  1849,  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Florida  the  principal  sum  only,  without  the 
interest  would  not  reimburse  the  State,  would  not  save  the  State  from  loss  and  damage, 
would  not  be  an  equivalent  for  the  expense  the  State  has  incurred  for  the  United  States. 
There  is  no  public  policy,  no  saving  to  the  public  Treasury,  no  virtue,  no  laudable  end  con- 
sulted in  order  to  cut  down  the  claims  of  the  several  States,  in  opposition  to  the  intention 
of  Congress  and  the  good  faith  of  the  Government, 


517 

Among  the  Acts  passed  to  provide  for  paying  interest  on  such  advances 
made  by  the  States  and  Territories  in  the  past,  the  following  may  be  cited. 
First,  on  account  of  the  war  of  1812  and  1814,  as  follows: 

Virginia,  Act  March  3,  1825,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  132. 
Maryland,  Act  of  May  13,  1826,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  151. 
Delaware,  Act  of  May  20,  1826,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  175. 
New  York,  Act  of  May  22,  1826,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  192. 
Pennsylvania,  Act  of  March  3,  1827,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  241. 
South  "Carolina,  Act  of  March  22,  1832, 4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  499. 
Maine,  Act  of  March  31,  1851, 9  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  626. 
Massachusetts  and  Maine,  Act  July  8,  1870,  16  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  198. 

That  the  same  rule  has  been  observed  in  settling  with  States  for  advances 
made  in  Indian  wars,  will  be  shown  by  reference  to  the  following  cases: 

Alabama,  Act  January  26,  1849,  9  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  344. 
Georgia,  Act  March  31,  1851,  9  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  626. 
Washington  Territory,  Act  March  3,  1859, 11  Stat,  at  Large,  p,  429. 
New  Hampshire,  Act  January  27,  1852,  10  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  1. 
California,  Act  August  5,  1854,  10  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  582. 
California,  Act  August  18,  1856,  11  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  91. 
California,  Act  June  23,  1860,  12  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  104. 
California,  Act  July  25,  1868,  15  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  175. 
California,  Act  March  3,  1881,  21  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  510. 

The  payment  of  advances  made  for  the  use  of  the  Government  in  the 
Mexican  war,  was  provided  for  by  a  general  Act,  passed  June  2, 1848,  which 
contains  the  following  provision  with  reference  to  interest: 

That  in  refunding  money  under  this  Act,  it  shall  be  lawful  to  pay  interest,  at  six  per 
centum  per  annum,  on  all'  sums  advanced  by  States,  corporations,  or  individuals,  in  all 
cases  where  the  State,  corporation,  or  individual  has  paid  or  lost  interest,  or  is  liable  to 
pay  it.    (9  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  236.) 

Considering  the  obvious  justice  of  the  object  proposed  by  said  bill,  and 
the  numerous  precedents  for  its  enactment,  and  in  view  of  the  large  interest 
which  your  State  has  at  stake  in  the  matter,  it  is  hoped  that  you  will  give 
to  said  measure  your  early  and  careful  attention;  and,  if  consistent  with 
your  views  of  your  duty  in  the  premises,  your  active  support. 

Yours,  etc., 

JOHN  MULLAN, 
State  Agent  and  Counsel  for  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  and  Nevada. 


EXHIBIT  No.  7. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  No.  1102. 

INTEREST  PAID  ON  WAR  CLAIMS. 

April  1,  1884 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the 
state  of  the  Union  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Rowell,  from  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 
[To  accompany  Bill  H.  R.  2463.] 
The  Committee  on  War  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R. 


518 

'2463)  to  reimburse  the  several  States  for  interest  paid  on  war  loans,  and 
for  other  purposes,  submit  the  following  report: 

By  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  and  the  joint  resolution  of  March  8,  1862, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  directed  to  pay  the  Governor  of  any 
State,  or  his  duly  authorized  agents,  "the  cost,  charges,  and  expenses  prop- 
erly incurred  by  such  States  for  enrolling,  subsisting,  clothing,  supplying, 
arming,  equipping,  paying,  and  transporting  its  troops  employed  in  aiding 
to  suppress  the  present  insurrection  against  the  United  States,  to  be  settled 
upon  proper  vouchers  to  be  filed  and  passed  upon  by  the  proper  accounting 
officers  of  the  Treasury." 

By  the  joint  resolution  of  March  8,  1862,  payments  were  directed  to  be 
made  for  expenditures  made  subsequent  to  as  well  as  before  the  passage  of 
the  Act.  Under  this  Act  disbursements  have  been  made  to  the  States 
amounting  to  the  sum  of  $43,296,938  22;  and  there  yet  remains  unsettled 
or  disallowed  claims  amounting  to  several  millions  of  dollars. 

Many,  if  not  all,  of  the  States  were  obliged  to  borrow  money  to  pay  the 
expenses  incurred,  but  in  adjusting  and  allowing  their  claims  the  account- 
ing officers  of  the  Treasury  have  rejected  all  claims  for  interest  paid  out  by 
the  States,  holding  that  the  law  did  not  authorize  such  payment. 

The  bill  under  consideration  provides  for  reimbursing  the  States  for  inter- 
est paid  or  lost  on  account  of  expenses  incurred  and  repaid  under  the  Act 
of  Jul^  27,  1861.  By  its  provisions,  interest  is  only  to  be  paid  on  such 
sums  as  have  been  refunded,  or  may  hereafter  be  refunded,  under  the 
authority  of  the  Act  of  Congress  and  explanatory  resolution;  no  interest  is 
to  be  paid,  unless  it  was  actually  paid  out  or  lost  by  the  States,  and  then 
only  up  to  the  time  of  repayment  by  the  Government;  and  limited  to  six 
per  cent. 

Claims  for  interest  have  been  filed  amounting  to  $3,188,887  25,  but  these 
claims  are  based  upon  a  higher  rate  of  interest  than  that  provided  in  the 
bill.  Other  States  have  not  filed  interest  claims,  owing  to  the  ruling  of  the 
Department,  but  if  the  bill  becomes  law  they  will  have  proper  claims. 

Your  committee  are  of  opinion  that  these  interest  claims,  at  a  rate  such 
as  the  General  Government  was  obliged  to  pay,  are  a  just  and  proper  charge 
against  the  Government.  Immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  Acts,  Mr. 
Chase,  then  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  a  communication  to  the  Auditor 
of  the  State  of  Ohio,  gave  assurances  that  interest  would  be  paid.  Laws 
were  passed  after  the  war  of  1812,  to  reimburse  the  several  States  for  mon- 
eys expended  in  that  war,  with  similar  provisos  to  the  law  under  which  the 
payments  herein  considered  have  been  made. 

Subsequently  Congress  passed  laws  to  pay  interest  as  is  provided  in  this 
bill.  A  similar  bill  was  passed  by  Congress  to  reimburse  States  for  ex- 
penses incurred  on  account  of  the  Indian  war,  with  like  necessity  of  sub- 
sequent legislation  to  authorize  the  payment  of  interest. 

It  seems  to  be  the  history  of  all  the  legislation  of  Congress  for  the  reim- 
bursement of  States  for  war  expenditures,  that  the  initial  statutes  have 
always  failed  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  interest,  but  in  every  instance, 
previous  to  1861,  subsequent  Acts  provided  for  the  payment  of  interest. 

It  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  the  settled  policy  of  Congress  to  repay 
to  the  several  States,  not  only  the  principal  sums  expended  by  them  in  aid 
of  the  General  Government  in  times  of  war,  but  also  to  repay  interest 
actually  paid  out,  not  exceeding  the  rate  paid  by  the  General  Government 
during  the  same  period. 

Your  committee  therefore  recommend  that  the  bill  do  pass. 


519 
EXHIBIT  No.  8. 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  2009.    Calendar  No.,  649.    [Report  No.  590.] 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.     April  5,  1884. 
Mr.  Cullom  introduced  the  following  bill,  which  was  read  twice,  and 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Claims. 

May  28,  1884 — Reported  by  Mr.  Hoar  without  amendment. 

A  BILL 

To  reimburse  the  several  States  for  interest  paid  on  war  loans^  and  for  other 

purposes. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  proper  accounting  offi- 
cers of  the  Treasury  Department  be  and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and 
directed  to  examine,  adjust,  and  settle  the  claims  of  the  several  States  of 
the  Union  against  the  United  States  for  interest  upon  loans  or  moneys 
borrowed  and  actually  expended  by  said  States  respectively  for  the  use 
and  benefit  of  the  United  States  under  authority  of  the  Act  of  Congress 
entitled  "An  Act  to  indemnify  the  States  for  expenses  incurred  by  them  in 
defense  of  the  United  States,"  approved  July  twenty-seventh,  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-one,  and  under  the  explanatory  joint  resolution  entitled 
"joint  resolution  declaratory  of  the  intent  and  meaning  of  a  certain  Act 
therein  named,"  approved  March  eighth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-two, 
and  kindred  Acts  providing  for  the  reimbursement  of  moneys  advanced 
by  States  to  aid  in  suppressing  the  rebellion;  provided,  that  the  benefits  of 
this  Act  shall  not  extend  to  any  State  which  shall  not  have  presented  a 
claim  for  such  interest  at  the  expiration  of  one  year  from  the  date  of  the 
passage  of  this  Act. 

Sec.  2.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  due  to  any  State  as 
aforesaid  the  following  rules  shall  be  applicable  and  shall  govern  the  case, 
to  wit: 

First — That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  such  State 
has  not  expended  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as  evidenced 
by  the  amount  refunded  or  repaid,  or  which  may  hereafter  be  refunded  or 
repaid,  to  such  State  under  and  by  authority  of  'the  said  Act  of  Congress 
and  the  explanatory  resolution  hereinabove  referred  to. 

Second — That  interest  shall  not  be  paid  to  any  State  on  any  sum  on 
which  such  State  shall  not  have  paid  or  lost  interest. 

Third — That  when  the  principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  paid  or 
refunded  by  the  United  States  to  any  State,  or  placed  in  the  hands  of  such 
State  for  that  purpose,  interest  on  the  amount  of  such  sum  or  sums  so  paid 
or  refunded  shall  cease,  and  not  be  considered  as  chargeable  to  the  United 
States  any  longer  than  up  to  the  time  of  the  repayment  aforesaid. 

Fourth — That  interest  shall  in  all  cases  contemplated  by  this  Act  be 
computed  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  amount  of  interest  due  to  any  State,  when  ascertained 
as  aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise 
appropriated. 


520 

Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.    Senate.    Report  No.  590. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.    May  28, 1884 — Ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Hoar,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  S.  2000.] 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (S.  2000)  to 
reimburse  the  several  States  for  interest  paid  on  war  loans,  and  for  other 
purposes,  have  considered  the  same,  and  respectfully  report: 

The  policy  of  the  United  States  to  refund  to  the  States  interest  on  money 
expended  by  them  in  aid  of  the  General  Government  for  military  purposes 
in  time  of  war  is  settled.  It  has  been  applied  to  all  such  expenditures 
incurred  by  the  States  in  aid  of  the  war  of  1812  (see  Virginia,  Act  March 
3,  1825,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  132;  Maryland,  Act  of  May  13,  1826,  4  Stat,  at 
Large,  p.  151;  Delaware,  Act  of  May  20,  1826,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  175; 
New  York,  Act  of  May  22,  1826,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  192;  Pennsylvania, 
Act  of  March  3,  1827,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  241;  South  Carolina,  Act  of 
March  22,  1832,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  499;  Maine,  Act  of  March  31,  1851,  9 
Stat,  at  Large,  p.  626;  Massachusetts  and  Maine,  Act  July  8,  1870,  16 
Stat,  at  Large,  p.  198);  in  aid  of  various  Indian  wars  (see  Alabama,  Act 
January  26,  1849,  9  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  344;  Georgia,  Act  March  31,  1851,  9 
Stat,  at  Large,  p.  626;  Washington  Territory,  Act  March  3,  1859,  11  Stat, 
at  Large,  p.  429;  New  Hampshire,  Act  January  27,  1852, 10  Stat,  at  Large, 
p.  1;  California,  Act  August  5,  1854,  10  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  582;  California, 
Act  August  18,  1856,  11  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  91;  California,  Act  June  23, 
1860,  12  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  104;  CaKfornia,  Act  July  25,  1868,  15  Stat,  at 
Large,  p.  175;  CaKfornia,  Act  March  3,  1881,  21  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  510); 
and  in  aid  of  the  Mexican  war.  See  statute  of  June  2,  1848,  which  is  as 
follows: 

AN   ACT 

To  refund  money  for  expenses  incurred,  subsistence  mid  transportation  fxtrnished  for  the  use  of 
volunteers  during  the  present  war  before  being  mustered  into  the  service  of  the  United  States. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  provisions  of  the  joint  resolution  approved  March  3,  1847, 
entitled  "A  resolution  to  refund  money  to  the  States  which  have  supplied  volunteers  and 
furnished  them  transportation  during  the  present  war,  before  being  mustered  and  received 
into  the  service  of  the  United  States,"  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  extended  so  as  to  em- 
brace all  cases  of  expenses  heretofore  incurred  in  organizing,  subsisting,  and  transporting 
volunteers,  previous  to  their  being  mustered  and  received  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  for  the  present  war,  whether  by  States,  counties,  corporations,  or  individuals,  either 
acting  with  or  without  the  authority  of  the  State;  provided,  however,  that  proof  shall  be 
made,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  of  the  amount  thus  expended,  and  thai 
the  same  was  necessary  and  proper  for  the  troops  aforesaid. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  an  amount  sufficient  to  refund  said  expenses 
so  incurred,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated. 

Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  in  refunding  moneys  under  this  Act  and  the 
resolution  which  it  amends  it  shall  be  lawful  to  pay  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum 
per  annum  on  all  sums  advance  [advanced]  by  States,  corporations,  or  individuals,  in  all 
cases  where  the  State,  corporation,  or  individual  paid  or  lost  the  interest,  or  is  liable  to  pay  it. 

Approved  June  2,  1848. 

Mr.  Chase,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  recognized  the  obligation  imposed 
by  these  precedents,  in  a  communication  to  the  State  Auditor  of  Ohio,  in 
the  following  language: 

If  Ohio  raises  money  by  loan  at  a  discount,  the  United  States  cannot  refund  such  dis- 
count to  the  State,  but  only  the  amount  of  the  debt  with  interest,  unless  Congress  specially 
provide  otherwise. 


521 

This  was  two  days  after  the  passage  of  the  statute  of  July  27,  1861, 
which  is  as  follows: 

That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  is  hereby  directed,  out  of  any  money  in  the 
Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  pay  to  the  Governor  of  any  State,  or  to  his  duly 
authorized  agents,  the  costs,  charges,  and  expenses  properly  incurred  by  such  State  for 
enrolling,  subsisting,  clothing,  supplying,  arming,  equipping,  paying,  and  transporting  its 

ippress  the  present  insurrection  again 


troops  employed  in  aiding  to  suppress  the  present  insurrection  against  the  United  States 
to  be  settled  upon  prop* 
officers  of  the  Treasury 


to  be  settled  upon  proper  vouchers  to  be  filed  and  passed  upon  by  the  proper  accounting 
-    -     ^j 


By  a  resolution  passed  March  8,  1862,  the  above  provision  is  to  be  con- 
strued to  apply  to  expenses  incurred  as  well  after  as  before  the  date  of  the 
approval  thereof. 

It  is  held  by  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  that  they  are  not 
warranted  in  the  allowance  of  interest  to  the  States  by  the  existing  law. 
This  question  was  submitted  to  the  present  Attorney-General,  who  says,  in 
his  opinion,  July  23,  1883: 

Undoubtedly  the  interest  paid  by  the  State  of  New  York  on  money  borrowed  and  applied 
to  the  objects  specified  in  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  forms  a  part  of  the  burden  borne  by  that 
State  for  the  general  public  defense,  and  constitutes  a  just  charge  against  the  United 
States ;  and  the  obligation  to  reimburse  for  payments  of  that  kind,  made  under  similar 
circumstances,  has  frequently  been  recognized  by  Congress,  as  appears  by  statutes  above 
cited. 

This  opinion  is  in  accord  with  that  of  his  predecessors,  Mr,  Wirt  and 
Mr.  Crittenden.     Mr.  Wirt  says: 

The  expenditure  thus  incurred  forms  a  debt  against  the  United  States  which  they  are 
bound  to  reimburse.  If  the  expenditures  made  for  such  purpose  are  supplied  from  the 
Treasury  of  the  State,  the  United  States  reimburse  the  principal  without  interest;  but  if, 
being  unable  itself,  from  the  condition  of  its  own  finances,  to  meet  the  emergency,  such 
State  has  been  obliged  to  borrow  money  for  the  purpose,  and  thus  to  incur  a  debt  on"  which 
she  herself  has  had  to  pay  interest,  such  debt  is  essentially  a  debt  due  by  the  United 
States,  and  both  the  principal  and  interest  are  to  be  paid  by  the  United  States.  (See 
Opinions  of  Attorneys-General,  vol.  1,  page  174.) 

Mr^  Crittenden  says: 

The  Act  of  twenty-seventh  of  February,  1851,  is  intended  to  indemnify  the  State  against 
loss  or  damage.  Reimbursing  means  repairing  the  loss  or  expenses  by  an  equivalent.  If 
the  State  of  Florida  has  contracted  obligations  bearing  interest,  or  has  paid  money,  with 
interest,  for  the  use  and  benefit,  in  necessary  and  proper  supplies  for  the  troops  called 
into  service  in  1849,  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Florida  the  principal  sum  only,  without  the 
interest,  would  not  reimburse  the  State,  would  not  save  the  State  from  loss  and  damage, 
would  not  be  an  equivalent  for  the  expense  the  State  has  incurred  for  the  United  States. 
There  is  no  public  policy,  no  saving  to  the  public  Treasury,  no  virtue,  no  laudable  end  con- 
sulted in  order  to  cut  down  the  claims  of  the  several  States,  in  opposition  to  the  intention 
of  Congress  and  the  good  faith  of  the  Government. 

We  append,  for  the  information  of  the  Senate,  House  Report  No.  1102, 
made  at  the  present  session,  and  recommend  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Rowell,  from  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  submitted  the  following  report  to 
accompany  bill  H.  R.  2463: 

The  Committee  on  War  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R.  2463)  to  reimburse 
the  several  States  for  interest  paid  on  war  loans,  and  for  other  purposes,  submit  the  fol- 
lowing report: 

By  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  and  the  joint  resolution  of  March  8,  1862,  the  Secretary,  of 
the  Treasury  was  directed  to  pay  to  the  Governor  of  anj^  State,  or  his  duly  authorized 
agents, ''  the  costs,  charges,  and  expenses  properly  incurred  by  such  States  for  enrolling, 
subsisting,  clothing,  supplying,  arming,  equipping,  paying,  and  transporting  its  troops 
employed  in  aiding  to  suppress  the  present  insurrection  against  the  United  States,  to  be 
settled  upon  proper  vouchers  to  be  filed  and  passed  upon  by  the  proper  accounting  officers 
of  the  Treasury." 


522 

By  the  joint  resolution  of  March  8,  1862,  payments  were  directed  to  be  made  for  exj)end- 
itufes  made  subsequent  to  as  well  as  before  the  passage  of  the  Act.  Under  this  Act 
disbursements  have  been  made  to  the  States  amounting  to  the  sum  of  143,29(5,938  22;  and 
there  yet  remain  unsettled  or  disallowed  claims  amounting  to  several  millions  of  dollars. 

Many,  if  not  all,  of  the  States  were  obliged  to  borrow  money  to  pay  the  expenses 
incurred,  but  in  adjusting  and  allowing  their  claims  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treas- 
ury have  rejected  all  claims  for  interest  paid  out  by  the  States,  holding  that  the  law  did 
not  authorize  such  payment. 

The  bill  under  consideration  provides  for  reimbursing  the  States  for  ijiterest  paid  or 
lost  on  account  of  expenses  incurred  and  repaid  under  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861.  By  its 
provisions,  interest  is  only  to  be  paid  on  such  sums  as  have  been  refunded  or  may  here- 
after be  refunded  under  the  authority  of  the  Act  of  Congress  and  explanatory  resolution : 
no  interest  is  to  be  paid,  unless  it  was  actually  paid  out  or  lost  by  the  States,  and  then 
only  up  to  the  time  of  repayment  by  the  Government,  and  limited  to  six  per  cent. 

Claims  for  interest  have  been  filed"  amounting  to  $3,188,887  25,  but  these  claims  are  based 
upon  a  higher  rate  of  interest  than  that  provided  in  the  bill;  other  States  have  not  filed 
interest  claims,  owing  to  the  ruling  of  the  department,  but  if  the  bill  becomes  a  law 
they  will  have  proper  claims. 

Your  committee  are  of  opinion  that  these  interest  claims,  at  a  rate  such  as  the  General 
Government  was  obliged  to  pay,  are  a  just  and  proper  charge  against  the  Government. 
Immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  Acts,  Mr.  Chase,  then  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in 
a  communication  to  the  Auditor  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  gave  assurances  that  interest  would 
be  paid.  Laws  were  passed  after  the  war  of  1812  to  reimburse  the  several  States  for 
moneys  expended  in  that  war,  with  similar  provisos  to  the  law  under  which  the  payments 
herein  considered  have  been  made. 

Subsequently  Congress  passed  laws  to  pay  interest,  as  is  provided  in  this  bill.  A  sint- 
ilar  bill  was  passed  by  Congress  to  reimburse  States  for  expenses  incurred  on  account  of 
the  Indian  war,  with  like  necessity  of  subsequent  legislation  to  authorize  the  payment  of 
interest. 

It  seems  to  be  the  history  of  all  the  legislation  of  Congress  for  the  reimbursement  of 
States  for  war  expenditures  that  the  initial  statutes  have  always  failed  to  provide  for  the 
payment  of  interest,  but  in  every  instance  previous  to  1861  subsequent  Acts  provided  for 
the  payment  of  interest. 

It  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  the  settled  policy  of  Congress  to  repay  to  the  several 
States  not  only  the  principal  sums  expended  by  them  in  aid  of  the  General  Government 
in  times  of  war,  but  also  to  repay  interest  actually  paid  out  not  exceeding  the  rate  paid 
by  the  General  Government  during  the  same  period. 

Your  committee  therefore  recommend  that  the  bill  do  pass. 


EXHIBIT  No.  Sy2. 

Senate  Concurrent  Resolution  No.  25  (adopted  March  5,  1885). 

Whereas,  The  law  of  July  27,  1861,  and  the  "joint  and  declaratory 
resolution"  of  March  8,  1862,  provided  for  the  reimbursement  to  the  States 
of  all  sums  by  them  expended  in  defense  of  the  United  States;  and  whereas, 
under  the  interpretation  of  said  original  Act  of  1861,  made  two  days  after 
its  passage  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  the  States  were  led  to  believe 
that  if  they,  respectively,  borrowed  money  on  their  own  account  and  ad- 
vanced it  to  the  United  States,  under  the  conditions  mentioned  in  said 
law,  that  said  sums,  together  with  the  interest  paid  thereon,  would  be 
refunded  to  them,  that  having  been  the  practice  of  the  United  States  in 
such  cases  for  more  than  sixty  years;  and  whereas,  acting  under  this 
impression  and  belief,  many  of  the  States  did  borrow  moneys  and  advance 
them  to  the  United  States,  and  paid  interest  thereon  from  their  own  re- 
sources; and  whereas,  the  principal  has,  in  a  great  measure,  been  refunded 
by  the  United  States  to  the  States  advancing  said  moneys,  still  the  interest 
paid  by  such  States,  as  aforesaid,  has  not  been  refunded;  and  whereas,  it 
is  held  by  the  Treasury  Department,  through  which  such  reimbursement 
settlements  are  made,  that  specific  legislation  will  be  required  to  justify 
the  payment  of  such  interest;  and  whereas.  Congress  has  always  hereto- 
fore provided,  specifically,  for  the  payment  of  interest  on  such  advances 
made  in  any  war,  either  foreign  or  Indian,  beginning  with  the  Act  of  March 
3,  1825,  to  reimburse  Virginia  for  interest  on  advances  made  during  the 


523 

war  of  1812,  to  that  of  March  3,  1881,  to  reimburse  CaHfornia  on  account 
of  similar  expenditures  made  in  one  of  her  Indian  wars;  and  whereas, 
during  the  late  war,  and  under  authority  of  said  "reimbursement"  Acts 
of  1861  and  1862,  the  State  of  California  advanced  to  the  United  States 
money  which  she  borrowed,  and  on  which  she  paid  interest,  and  which 
interest  has  in  no  part  been  refunded  by  the  United  States,  but  is  now 
justly  due  the  State;  and  whereas,  there  are  now  pending,  in  both  branches 
of  the  present  Congress,  measures  designed  to  authorize  the  settlement  of 
the  claims  of  the  several  States  for  such  interest  (being  S.  2000,  and  H.  R. 
2463) ,  and  which  said  measures  have  been  reported  on  by  the  committees 
to  which  they  were  referred,  in  both  Houses,  in  unanimously  favorable 
reports;  therefore, 

Be  it  resolved  by  the  Senate^  the  Assembly  concurring^  That  our  Senators 
and  Representatives  in  Congress  be  and  they  are  hereby  requested  to  give 
their  active  support  to  said  bills,  or  to  others  having  the  same  object  in 
view,  and  to  use  their  best  endeavors,  in  cooperation  with  the  agent  of  this 
State,  and  in  support  of  his  efforts,  to  thus  secure  to  the  State  the  amounts 
by  her  expended,  as  aforesaid. 

Be  it  further  resolved^  That  a  copy  of  the  above  preamble  and  resolution 
be  sent  by  the  Governor  of  this  State  to  our  Senators  and  Representatives 
in  Congress,  and  to  our  State  agent. 


EXHIBIT  No.  9. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  152. 

In  the   House  of  Representatives.     December  21,  1885 — Read   twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  reimburse  the  several  States  for  interest  paid  on  war  loans,  and  for  other 

purposes. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  proper  accounting 
officers  of  the  Treasury  Department  be  and  they  are  hereby  authorized 
and  directed  to  examine,  adjust,  and  settle  the  claims  of  the  several  States 
of  the  Union  against  the  United  States  for  interest  upon  loans  or  moneys 
borrowed  and  actually  expended  by  said  States,  respectively,  for  the  use 
and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  under  authority  of  the  Act  of  Congress 
entitled  "  An  Act  to  indemnify  the  States  for  expenses  incurred  by  them  in 
defense  of  the  United  States,"  approved  July  twenty-seventh,  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty-one,  and  under  the  explanatory  joint  resolution  entitled 
"  Joint  resolution  declaratory  of  the  intent  and  meaning  of  a  certain  Act 
therein  named,"  approved  March  eighth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-two, 
and  kindred  Acts,  providing  for  the  reimbursement  of  moneys  advanced  by 
States  to  aid  in  suppressing  the  rebellion;  provided,  that  the  benefits  of  this 
Act  shall  not  extend  to  any  State  which  shall  not  have  presented  a  claim 
for  such  interest  at  the  expiration  of  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  passage 
of  this  Act. 

Sec.  2.    That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  due  to  any  State  as 


524 

aforesaid,  the  following  rules  shall  be  applicable  and  shall  govern  the  case, 
to  wit : 

First — That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  such 
State  has  not  expended  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as 
evidenced  by  the  amount  refunded  or  repaid,  or  which  may  hereafter  be 
refunded  or  repaid,  to  such  State,  under  and  by  authority  of  the  said  Acts 
of  Congress  and  the  explanatory  resolution  hereinabove  referred  to. 

Second — That  interest  shall  not  be  paid  to  any  State  on  any  sum  on 
which  such  State  shall  not  have  paid  interest,  or  lost  the  same  by  the  dispo- 
sition of  interest-bearing  securities  held  by  the  State. 

Third — That  when  the  principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  paid  or 
refunded  by  the  United  States  to  any  State,  or  placed  in  the  hands  of  such 
State  for  that  purpose,  interest  on  the  amount  of  such  sum  or  sums  so  paid 
or  refunded  shall  cease,  and  not  be  considered  as  chargeable  to  the  United 
States  any  longer  than  up  to  the  time  of  the  repayment  aforesaid. 

Fourth — That  interest  shall  in  all  cases  contemplated  by  this  Act  be 
computed  at  the  rate  paid  by  the  State,  not  exceeding  six  per  centum  per 
annum. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  amount  of  interest  due  to  any  State,  when  ascertained 
as  aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise 
appropriated. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    H.  R.  163. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     December  21,  1885  —  Read   twice, 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  reimburse  the  States  and  Territories  for  interest  on  money  heretofore  used 
and  expended  by  them  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities. 

Be  it  enacted,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  proper  accounting  officers 
of  the  Treasury  Department  be  and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed 
to  examine,  adjust,  and  settle  the  claims  of  the  several  States  and  Terri- 
tories for  interest  upon  loans  or  moneys  borrowed  and  heretofore  actually 
expended  by  said  States  and  Territories,  respectively,  in  the  suppres- 
sion of  Indian  hostilities;  provided,  that  the  benefits  of  this  Act  shall  not 
extend  to  any  State  or  Territory  which  shall  not  have  presented  a  claim  for 
such  interest  at  the  expiration  of  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  passage  of 
this  Act. 

Sec.  2.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  due  to  any  State  or 
Territory,  as  aforesaid,  the  following  rules  shall  be  applicable,  and  shall 
govern  the  case,  to  wit: 

First — That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  such  State 
or  Territory  has  not  heretofore  expended  in  the  suppression  of  Indian  hos- 
tilities, as  evidenced  by  the  amount  of  money  refunded  or  repaid,  or  which 
may  hereafter  be  refunded  or  repaid  to  such  States  or  Territories  which 
have  heretofore  made  such  expenditures. 

Second — That  no  interest  shall  be  paid  to  any  State  or  Territory  on  any 
sum  on  which  said  State  or  Territory  shall  not  have  paid  or  lost  interest. 

Third — That  when  the  principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  paid  or 
refunded  by  the  United  States  to  any  such  State  or  Territory,  or  placed  in 


525 

the  hands  .of  such  State  or  Territory  for  that  purpose,  interest  on  the 
amount  of  the  sum  or  sums  so  paid  or  refunded  shall  cease,  and  not  be 
considered  as  chargeable  to  the  United  States  any  longer  than  up  to  the 
time  of  the  repayment  aforesaid. 

Fourth — That  interest  in  all  cases  contemplated  by  this  Act  shall  be 
computed  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  amount  of  interest  due  to  any  State  or  Territory,  when 
ascertained  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  to  the  Governor  of  such  State  or 
Territory,  or  the  duly  authorized  agent  thereof,  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 


Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    S.  59.    Calendar  No.  8.    Report  No.  2. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  December  8,  1885 — Mr.  Cullom 
introduced  the  following  bill;  which  was  read  twice  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Claims. 

December  16,  1885 — Reported  by  Mr.  Hoar,  with  amendments,  viz.: 
Omit  the  parts  struck  through  and  insert  the  parts  printed  in  italics. 

A  BILL 

To  reimburse  the  several  States  for  interest  paid  on  war  loans,  and  for  other 

purposes. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  proper  accounting  officers 
of  the  Treasury  Department  be  and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed 
to  examine,  adjust,  and  settle  the  claims  of  the  several  States  of  the  Union 
against  the  United  States  for  interest  upon  loans  or  moneys  borrowed  and 
actually  expended  by  said  States,  respectively,  for  the  use  and  benefit  of 
the  United  States,  under  authority  of  the  Act  of  Congress  entitled  "An  Act 
to  indemnify  the  States  for  expenses  incurred  by  them  in  defense  of  the 
United  States,"  approved  July  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- 
one,  and  under  the  explanatory  joint  resolution  entitled  "  Joint  Resolution 
declaratory  of  the  intent  and  meaning  of  a  certain  Act  therein  named," 
approved  March  eighth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-two,  and  kindred  Acts 
providing  for  the  reimbursement  of  moneys  advanced  by  States  to  aid  in 
suppressing  the  rebellion;  provided,  that  the  benefits  of  this  Act  shall  not 
extend  to  any  State  which  shall  not  have  presented  a  claim  for  such  interest 
at  the  expiration  of  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this  Act. 

Sec.  2.  That  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  interest  due  to  any  State  as 
aforesaid  the  following  rules  shall  be  applicable,  and  shall  govern  the  case^ 
to  wit: 

First — That  interest  shall  not  be  computed  on  any  sum  which  such 
State  has  not  expended  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  United  States,  as 
evidenced  by  the  amount  refunded  or  repaid,  or  which  may  hereafter  be 
refunded  or  repaid  to  such  State,  under  and  by  authority  of  the  said  Acts 
of  Congress  and  the  explanatory  resolution  hereinabove  referred  to. 

Second — That  interest  shall  not  be  paid  to  any  State  on  any  sum  on 
which  such  State  shall  not  have  paid  interest,  or  lost  the  same  by  the  dispo- 
sition of  interest-bearing  securities  held  by  the  State. 

Third — That  when  the  principal,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  paid  or 
refunded  by  the  United  States  to  any  State,  or  placed  in  the  hands  of  such 
State  for  that  purpose,  interest  on  the  amount  of  such  sum  or  sums  so  paid 


526 

or  refunded  shall  cease,  and  not  be  considered  as  chargeable  to  the  United 
States  any  longer  than  up  to  the  time  of  the  repayment  aforesaid. 

Fourth — That  interest  shall  in  all  cases  contemplated  by  this  Act  be 
computed  at  the  rate  paid  hy  the  State,  not  exceeding  six  per  centum  per 
annum. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  amount  of  interest  due  to  any  State,  when  ascertained 
as  aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise 
appropriated. 

EXHIBIT  No.  10. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    Senate.    Report  No.  2. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  December  16,  1885 — Ordered  to  be 
printed. 

Mr.  Hoar,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  S.  59.] 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (S.  59)  to  reim- 
burse the  several  States  for  interest  paid  on  war  loans,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses, have  considered  the  same,  and  respectfully  report: 

The  policy  of  the  United  States  to  refund  to  the  States  interest  on  money 
expended  by  them  in  aid  of  the  General  Government  for  military  purposes 
in  time  of  war  is  settled.  It  has  been  applied  to  all  such  expenditures 
incurred  by  the  States  in  aid  of  the  war  of  1812  (see  Virginia,  Act  March 
3,  1825,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  132;  Maryland,  Act  of  May  13, 1826,  4  Stat,  at 
Large,  p.  151;  Delaware,  Act  of  May  20,  1826,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  175; 
New  York,  Act  of  May  22,  1826,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  192;  Pennsylvania, 
Act  of  March  3,  1827,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  241;  South  Carolina,  Act  of 
March  22,  1832,  4  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  499;  Maine,  Act  of  March  31,  1851,  9 
Stat,  at  Large,  p.  626;  Massachusetts  and  Maine,  Act  July  8,  1870,  16 
Stat,  at  Large,  p.  198);  in  aid  of  various  Indian  wars  (see  Alabama,  Act 
January  26,  1849,  9  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  344;  Georgia,  Act  March  31,  1851,  9 
Stat,  at  Large,  p.  626;  Washington  Territory,  Act  March  3,  1859,  11  Stat, 
at  Large,  p.  429;  New  Hampshire,  Act  January  27,  1852, 10  Stat,  at  Large, 
p.  1;  California,  Act  August  5,  1854,  10  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  582;  California, 
Act  August  18,  1856,  11  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  91;  California,  Act  June  23, 
1860,  12  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  104;  California,  Act  July  25,  1868,  15  Stat,  at 
Large,  p.  175;  California,  Act  March  3,  1881,  21  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  510); 
and  in  aid  of  the  Mexican  war.  See  statute  of  June  2,  1848,  which  is  as 
follows: 

AN  ACT 

To  refund  money  for  expenses  incurred,  subsistence  and  transportation  furnished  for  the  iise  of 
volunteers  during  the  present  war  before  being  mustered  into  the  service  of  the  United  States. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  provisions  of  the  joint  resolution  approved  March  3,  1847, 
entitled  "A  resolution  to  refund  money  to  the  States  which  have  supplied  volunteers  and 
furnished  them  transportation  during  the  present  war,  before  being  mustered  and  received 
into  the  service  of  the  United  States,"  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  extended  so  as  to 
embrace  all  cases  of  expenses  heretofore  incurred  in  organizing,  subsisting,  and  trans- 
porting volunteers,  previous  to  their  being  mustered  and  received  into  the  service  of  the 
United  States,  for  the  present  war,  whether  by  States,  counties,  corporations,  or  indi- 
viduals, either  acting  with  or  without  the  authority  of  the  State;  jnovided,  however,  that 
proof  shall  be  made,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  of  the  amount  thus 
expended,  and  that  the  same  was  necessary  and  proper  for  the  troops  aforesaid. 


527 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  an  amount  suflBcient  to  refund  said  expenses 
so  incurred  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated. 

Sec  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  refunding  moneys  under  this  Act,  and  the 
resolution  which  it  amends,  it  shall  be  lawful  to  pay  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum 
per  annum  on  all  sums  advance  [advanced]  by  States,  corporations,  or  individuals,  m  all 
cases  where  the  State,  corporation,  or  individual  paid  or  lost  the  interest,  or  is  liable  to  pay  it. 

Approved  Jnne  2,  1848. 

Mr.  Chase,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  recognized  the  obligation  imposed 
by  these  precedents,  in  a  communication  to  the  State  Auditor  of  Ohio,  in 
the  following  language : 

If  Ohio  raises  money  by  loan  at  a  discount,  the  United  States  cannot  refund  such  dis- 
count to  the  State,  but  only  the  amount  of  the  debt  with  interest,  unless  Congress  specially 
provide  otherwise. 

This  was  two  days  after  the  passage  of  the  statute  of  July  27,  1861, 
which  is  as  follows: 

That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  and  is  hereby  directed,  out  of  any  money  in  the 
Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  pay  to  the  Governor  of  any  State,  or  to  his  duly 
authorized  agents,  the  costs,  charges,  and  expenses  properly  incurred  by  such  State  for 
enrolling,  subsisting,  clothing,  supplying,  arming,  Equipping,  paying,  and*  transporting  its 
troops  employed  in  aiding  to  suppress  the  present  insurrection  against  the  United  States, 
to  be  settled  upon  proper  vouchers  to  be  filed  and  passed  upon  by  the  proper  accounting 
oflBcers  of  the  Treasury. 

By  a  resolution  passed  March  8,  1862,  the  above  provision  is  to  be  con- 
strued to  apply  to  expenses  incurred  as  well  after  as  before  the  date  of  the 
approval  thereof 

It  is  held  by  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  that  they  are  not 
warranted  in  the  allowance  of  interest  to  the  States  by  the  existing  law. 
This  question  was  submitted  to  Attorney-General  Brewster,  who  says,  in 
his  opinion,  July  23,  1883: 

Undoubtedly  the  interest  paid  by  the  State  of  New  York  on  money  borrowed  and  applied 
to  the  objects  specified  in  the  Act  of  July  27, 1861,  forms  a  part  of  the  burden  borne  by  that 
State  for  the  general  public  defense,  and  constitutes  a  just  charge  against  the  United 
States;  and  the  obligation  to  reimburse  for  payments  of  that  kind,  made  under  similar 
circumstances,  has  frequently  been  recognized  by  Congress,  as  appears  by  statutes  above 
cited. 

This  opinion  is  in  accord  with  that  of  his  predecessors,  Mr.  Wirt  and 
Mr.  Crittenden.     Mr.  Wirt  says: 

The  expenditure  thus  incurred  forms  a  debt  against  the  United  States  which  they  are 
bound  to  reimburse.  If  the  expenditures  made  for  such  purpose  are  supplied  from  the 
Treasury  of  the  State,  the  United  States  reimburse  the  pnncipal  without  interest;  but  if, 
being  unable  itself,  from  the  condition  of  its  own  finances,  to  meet  the  emergency,  such 
State  has  been  obliged  to  borrow  money  for  the  purpose,  and  thus  to  incur  a  debt  on  which 
she  herself  has  had  to  pay  interest,  such  debt  is  essentially  a  debt  due  by  the  United 
States,  and  both  the  principal  and  interest  are  to  be  paid  by  the  United  States.  (See 
Opinions  of  Attorneys-General,  vol.  1,  page  174.) 

Mr.  Crittenden  said: 

The  Act  of  twenty-seventh  of  February,  1851,  is  intended  to  indemnify  the  State  against 
loss  or  damage.  Reimbursing  means  repairing  the  loss  or  expenses  by  an  equivalent.  If 
the  State  of  Florida  has  contracted  obligations  bearing  interest,  or  has  paid  money,  with 
interest,  for  the  use  and  benefit,  in  necessary  and  proper  supplies  for  the  troops  called 
into  service  in  1849,  to  refund  to  the  State  of  Florida  the  principal  sum  only,  without  the 
interest,  would  not  reimburse  the  State,  would  not  save  the  State  from  loss  and  damage, 
would  not  be  an  equivalent  for  the  expense  the  State  has  incurred  for  the  United  States. 
There  is  no  public  policy,  no  saving  to  the  public  Treasury,  no  virtue,  no  laudable  end  con- 
sulted in  order  to  cut  down  the  claims  of  the  several  States,  in  opposition  to  the  intention 
of  Congress  and  the  good  faith  of  the  Government. 


528 

We  append,  for  the  information  of  the  Senate,  House  Report  No.  1102, 
made  at  the  last  session,  and  recommend  the  passage  of  the  bill,  with 
sundry  amendments. 

Mr.  Rowell,  from  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  submitted  the  following  report  to 
accompany  bill  H.  R.  24G3 : 

The  Committee  on  War  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R,  2463)  to  reimburse 
the  several  States  for  interest  paid  on  war  loans,  and  for  other  purposes,  submit  the  fol- 
lowing report : 

By  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  and  the  joint  resolution  of  March  8,  1862,  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  was  directed  to  pay  to  the  Governor  of  any  State,  or  his  duly  authorized 
agent,  "  the  costs,  charges,  and  expenses  properly  incurred  by  such  States  for  enrolling, 
subsisting,  clothing,  supplying,  arming,  equipping,  paying,  and  transporting  its  troops 
employed  in  aiding  to  suppress  the  present  insurrection  against  the  United  States,  to  be 
settled  upon  proper  vouchers  to  be  filed  and  passed  upon  by  the  proper  accounting  officers 
of  the  Treasury." 

By  the  joint  resolution  of  March  8,  1862,  payments  were  directed  to  be  made  for  expen- 
ditures made  subsequent  to  as  well  as  before  the  passage  of  the  Act.  Under  this  Act  dis- 
bursements have  been  made  to  the  States  amounting  to  the  sum  of  $43,296,938  22;  and 
there  yet  remain  unsettled  of  disallowed  claims  amounting  to  several  millions  of  dollars. 

Many,  if  not  all,  of  the  States  were  obliged  to  borrow  money  to  pay  the  expenses  incurred, 
but  in  adjusting  and  allowing  their  claims  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  have 
rejected  all  claims  for  interest  paid  out  by  the  States,  holding  that  the  law  did  not  authorize 
such  payment. 

The  bill  under  consideration  provider  for  reimbursing  the  States  for  interest  paid  or  lost 
on  account  of  expenses  incurred  and  repaid  under  the  Act"  of  July  27,  1861.  By  its  provi- 
sions, interest  is  only  to  be  paid  on  such  sums  as  have  been  refunded  or  may  hereafter  be 
refunded  under  the  authority  of  the  Act  of  Congress  and  explanatory  resolution ;  no  inter- 
est is  to  be  paid,  unless  it  w.'is  actually  paid  out  or  lost  by  the  States,  and  then  only  up  to 
the  time  of  repayment  by  the  Government,  and  limited  to  six  per  cent. 

Claims  for  interest  have  been  filed  amounting  to  $3,188,887  25,  but  these  claims  are  based 
upon  a  higher  rate  of  interest  than  that  provided  in  the  bill ;  other  States  have  not  filed 
interest  claims,  owing  to  the  ruling  of  the  department,  if  the  bill  becomes  a  law  they  will 
have  proper  claims. 

Your  committee  are  of  opinion  that  these  interest  claims,  at  a  rate  such  as  the  General 
Government  was  obliged  to  pay,  are  a  just  and  proper  charge  against  the  Government. 
Immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  Acts,  Mr.  Chase,  then  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in 
a  communication  to  the  Auditor  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  gave  assurances  that  interest  would 
be  paid.  Laws  were  passed  after  the  war  of  1812  to  reimburse  the  several  States  for 
moneys  expended  in  that  war,  with  similar  provisos  to  the  law  under  which  the  payments 
herein  considered  have  been  made. 

Subsequently  Congress  passed  laws  to  pay  interest,  as  is  provided  in  this  bill.  A  sim- 
ilar bill  was  passed  by  Congress  to  reimburse  States  for  expenses  incurred  on  account  of 
the  Indian  war,  with  like  necessity  of  subsequent  legislation  to  authorize  the  payment  of 
interest. 

It  seems  to  be  the  history  of  all  the  legislation  of  Congress  for  the  reimbursement  of 
States  for  war  expenditures  that  the  initial  statutes  have  always  failed  to  provide  for  the 
payment  of  interest,  but  in  every  instance  previous  to  1861  subsequent  Acts  provided  for 
the  payment  of  interest. 

It  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  the  settled  policy  of  Congress  to  repay  to  the  several 
States  not  only  the  jjrincipal  sums  expended  by  them  in  aid  of  the  General  Government 
in  times  of  war,  but  also  to  repay  interest  actually  paid  out  not  exceeding  the  rate  paid  by 
the  General  Government  during  the  same  period. 

Your  committee  therefore  recommend  that  the  bill  do  pass. 


EXHIBIT  No.  11. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    Senate.    Report  No.  183, 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.    March  3, 1886 — Ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Hampton,  from  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  submitted  the 
following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  S.  1729.] 

The  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  to  whom  was  referred  bill  (S.  1293) 
"to  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  settle  and  pay  the  claim  of 


529 

the  State  of  Florida  on  account  of  expenditures  made  in  suppressing  In- 
dian hostilities,  and  for  other  purposes,"  have  considered  the  same,  and 
they  beg  leave  to  report : 

That  in  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  they  had  under  consideration  the 
same  subject,  and  they  reported  by  bill  to  the  Senate.  A  report  accompa- 
nied the  bill,  and  this  report,  now  annexed,  is  adopted.  They  recommend 
the  indefinite  postponement  of  Bill  1293,  and  the  substitution  of  a  bill 
hereby  reported,  that  being  the  bill  reported  favorably  by  the  committee  in 
the  Forty-eighth  Congress. 


[Senate  Report  No.  109,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.] 

The  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (S.  230)  "to  authorize 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  settle  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Florida  on  account  of 
expenditures  made  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities,"  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following 
report: 

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  joint  resolution  of  Congress  approved 
March  3,  1881,  the  Secretary  of  War  has  investigated,  audited,  and  made  a  report  to  Con- 
gress, May  22, 1882,  of  the  amount  due  the  State  of  Florida  for  expenditures  made  in  sup- 
pressing Indian  hostilities  in  that  State  between  the  first  day  of  December,  1855,  and  the 
first  day  of  January,  1860.    (Ex.  Doc.  203,47th  Congress,  first  session.) 

The  expenditures  grew  out  of  the  Seminole  war  of  1855, 1856,  and  1857,  the  State  author- 
ities being  compelled,  in  the  presence  of  an  anticipated  and  subsequently  actual  outbreak 
of  the  Indians,  to  call  forth  the  militia  of  the  State,  the  force  of  United  States  troops 
then  on  duty  being  inadequate  to  the  protection  of  the  people.  The  report  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  (Ex.  Doc.  203)  fully  sets  forth  in  detail  the  items  of  expenditure  allowed  and 
disallowed,  the  total  amount  found  due  the  State  being  the  sum  of  $224,648  09. 

It  is  established  that  the  funds  at  the  command  of  the  Executive  of  the  State  of  Flor- 
ida in  the  years  referred  to  were  insufficient  to  equip,  supply,  and  pay  the  troops  in  the 
field,  and,  relying  upon  the  approval  given  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  the 
Secretary  of  War,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  May,  1857,  of  the  services  of  these  volun- 
teers, the  State  Legislature,  in  order  to  provide  their  eqiiipment  and  maintenance,  author- 
ized the  issue  of  seven  per  cent  bonds. 

A  portion  of  the  bonds,  amounting  to  $132,000,  was  sold  by  the  Governor  to  the  Indian 
Trust  Fund  of  the  United  States,  and  the  proceeds  of  such  sale  were  disbursed  by  the 
Treasurer  of  the  State  for  the  "expenses  of  Indian  hostilities,''  as  appears  from  his  report 
to  the  Legislature  for  the  year  ending  October  31,  1857.  Another  portion  was  hypothe- 
cated to  the  banks  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  as  security  for  a  loan  of  |222,6l5,  and 
$192,331  of  this  loan  was  disbursed  directly  by  a  disbursing  agent  of  the  State  in  payment 
of  "expenses  of  Indian  hostilities,"  including  pay  of  volunteers. 

The  portion  of  the  bonds  sold  to  the  United  States  for  the  "  Indian  Trust  Fund  "  is  still 
held  by  that  fund,  and  accrued  interest  since  1857. 

The  State  of  Florida  paid  out  through  a  disbursing  agent,  as  shown  by  War 

Department  report... $193,330  16 

And  through  warrants  from  State  Treasurer 78,056  11 

Total ....$271,386  27 

Interest  on  this  sum  from  January  1, 1857,  to  April  1, 1883 498,672  27 

Total  cost  to  the  State  to  date $770,058  54 

We  quote  from  a  statement  made  by  the  United  States  Treasurer  of  the  State 
indebtedness  to  the  "Indian  Trust  Fund,"  June  12,  1882,  as  follows: 

Loan  on  seven  per  cent  bonds  of  the  State  of  Florida $132,000 

Coupons  due  and  unpaid  January  1, 1877 138,040 

Interest  to  July  1, 1882,  from  January  1,  1857 50,820 

Interest  from  July  1,  1882,  to  April  1, 1883 6,930 

327,790  00 

Due  the  State $442,268  54 

There  appears,  therefore,  lawfully  due  the  State  of  Florida,  according  to  the  State  Treas- 
urer's account,  the  sum  of  $770,058  54,  being  the  principal  and  interest  of  the  sums  which 
she  borrowed  and  expended  on  behalf  of  the  United  States. 

If  from  this  sum  be  deducted  the  amount  loaned  the  State  bj'-  the  Indian  Trust  Fund, 
principal  and  interest,  $327,790,  there  still  remains  due  the  State  the  sum  of  $442,268  54. 

In  auditing  the  accounts  of  the  State,  however,  the  Secretary  of  War  has  disallowed 
many  items  under  the  rules  and  regulations  governing  payments  to  the  regular  forces, 

34"^ 


530 

and  yet,  with  all  his  disallowances,  after  an  exhaustive  examination,  he  finds  due  $324,- 
648  09.  Now,  if  we  add  the  interest  on  this  sum  from  January  1.  1857,  to  April  1,  1883,  to 
wit,  $412,790  86,  we  have  $637,438  95.  Now,  if  we  deduct  the  amount  due  the  Indian  Trust 
Fund,  to  wit,  $327,790,  there  is  still  due  the  State  the  sum  of  $309,648  95. 

This  case  is  one  where  the  Government,  through  the  President  of  the  United  States 
and  Secretary  of  War,  promised  to  pay  these  troops  when  mustered  into  the  United  States 
service,  and  they  would  have  been  long  since  paid  by  the  Government,  if  so  mustered,  but 
the  mustering  officer  arrived  in  the  State  after  they  had  been  mustered  out,  and  the  State 
was  compelled  to  borrow  money  with  which  to  pay  them. 

Congress  has  universally  paid  interest  to  the  States  where  they  have  paid  interest.  We 
cite  the  cases  where  interest  has  been  allowed  and  paid  for  moneys  advanced  during  the 
war  of  1812-15,  as  follows:  Virginia,  Act  March  3,  1825  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  132);  Maryland, 
Act  May  13,  1826  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  161)-  Delaware,  Act  May  20,  1826  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  175); 
New  York,  Act  Mav  22;  1826  (4  Stat,  af  L.,  p.  192);  Pennsylvania,  Act  March  3,  1827  (4  Stat, 
at  L.,  p.  241);  South  Carolina,  Act  March  22,  1832  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  499);  Massachusetts, 
July  8, 1870  (16  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  198). 

For  advances  for  Indian  and  other  wars  the  same  rule  has  been  observed  in  the  follow- 
ing cases:  Alabama,  Act  January  26,  1849  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  344);  Georgia,  Act  March  31, 
1851  (9  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  626);  Georgia,  Act  March  3,  1879  (20  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  385);  Washington 
Territorv,  Act  March  3,  1859  (11  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  429);  New  Hampshire,  Act  January  27;  1852 
(10  Stat.'at  L.,  p.  1). 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  precedent  for  the  payment  of  interest  under  the  rule 
adopted  for  the  settlement  of  claims  of  war  of  1812-15  is  well  established. 

The  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  urgent  necessity  for  the  services  of  these 
troops  and  the  action  of  the  President  and  the  Secretary  of  War  create  an  equitable  obli- 
gation on  the  part  of  the  General  Government;  and  as  the  State  of  Florida  not  only  bor- 
rowed money  from  the  Indian  Trust  Fund,  but  also  from  the  banks  of  the  States  of 
Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  for  their  payment,  upon  which  the  State  has  since  paid  inter- 
est, your  committee  have  concluded  to  recommend  the  sum  of  $92,f)48  09  as  a  full  payment 
to  the  State  of  all  Indian  war  claims,  this  being  the  difference  after  deducting  the  sum 
borrowed  by  the  State  from  the  Indian  Trust  Fund  ($132,000)  from  the  amount  found  due 
the  State  by  the  Secretary  of  War  ($224,648  09),  and  to  further  recommend  the  delivery  to 
the  State  of  all  bonds  and  coupons  held  by  the  trustee  of  the  Indian  Trust  Fund. 

The  committee  have  amended  the  bill  in  accordance  with  the  views  expressed  in  this 
report,  and  they  recommend  the  passage  of  the  bill  as  thus  amended.  Accompanying 
the  report  is  a  communication  from  the  Secretary  of  War,  explaining-  the  origin  and"^  the 
present  condition  of  the  claim  of  the  State  of  JFlorida  against  the  Government  of  the 
United  States. 


EXHIBIT  No.  12. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  No.  1560. 

REIMBURSING  INTEREST   ON  WAR  LOANS. 

April  6,  1886 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on 
the  state  of  the  Union  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Perry,  from  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  152.] 

The  Committee  on  War  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R. 
152)  to  reimburse  the  several  States  for  interest  paid  on  war  loans,  and  for 
other  purposes,  having  carefully  considered  the  same  and  accompanying 
papers,  submit  the  following  report: 

By  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  and  the  joint  resolution  of  March  8,  1862, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  directed  to  pay  to  the  Governor  of  any 
State  or  his  duly  authorized  agents  "  the  costs,  charges,  and  expenses 
properly  incurred  by  such  States  for  enrolling,  subsisting,  clothing,  supply- 
ing, arming,  equipping,  pa3dng,  and  transporting  its  troops  employed  in 
aiding  to  suppress  the  present  insurrection  against  the  United  States,  to  be 
settled  upon  proper  vouchers  to  be  filed  and  passed  upon  by  the  proper 
accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury." 


581 

By  the  joint  resolution  of  March  8,  1862,  payments  were  directed  to  be 
made  for  expenditures  made  subsequent  to,  as  well  as  before,  the  passage 
of  the  Act. 

Under  this  Act  disbursements  have  been  made  to  the  States  amounting 
to  the  sum  of  $43,296,938  22,  and  there  yet  remain  unsettled  or  disallowed 
claims  amounting  to  several  millions  of  dollars. 

Many,  if  not  all,  of  the  States  were  obliged  to  borrow  money  to  pay  the 
expenses  incurred,  but  in  adjusting  and  allowing  their  claims  the  account- 
ing officers  of  the  Treasury  have  rejected  all  claims  for  interest  paid  out 
by  the  States,  holding  that  the  law  did  not  authorize  such  payment.  An 
examination  of  the  evidence  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  decision 
of  the  Department  was  correct.  Your  committee  therefore  recommend 
that  the  bill  do  not  pass. 

VIEWS   OF    THE   MINORITY. 

A  similar  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Forty-eighth  Congress,  and  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  which,  "through  Mr.  Rowell,  presented 
the  following  report,  to  wit: 

By  the  Act  of  July  27,  1861,  and  the  joint  resolution  of  March  8,  1862,  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  was  directed  to  pay  to  the  Governor  of  any  State,  or  his  duly  authorized 
agents,  "  the  costs,  charges,  and  expenses  properly  incurred  by  such  States,  for  enrolling, 
subsisting,  clothing,  supplying,  arming,  equipping,  paying,  and  transporting  its  troops 
employed  in  aiding  to  suppress  the  present  insurrection  against  the  United  States,  to  be 
settled  upon  proper  vouchers  to  be  med  and  passed  upon  by  the  proper  accounting  officers 
of  the  Treasury." 

By  the  joint  resolution  of  March  8, 1862,  payments  were  directed  to  be  made  for  expen- 
ditures made  subsequent  to  as  w^ell  as  before  the  passage  of  the  Act.  Under  this  Act 
disbursements  have  been  made  to  the  States  amounting  to  the  sum  of  $43,296,938  22;  and 
there  yet  remain  unsettled  or  disallowed  claims  amounting  to  several  millions  of  dollars. 

Many,  if  not  all,  of  the  States  were  obliged  to  borrow  money  to  pay  the  expenses 
incurred,  but  in  adjusting  and  allowing  their  claims  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treas- 
ury have  rejected  all  claims  for  interest  paid  out  by  the  States,  holding  that  the  law  did 
not  authorize  such  payment. 

The  bill  under  consideration  provides  for  reimbursing  the  States  for  interest  paid  or 
lost  on  account  of  expenses  incurred  and  repaid  under  the  Act  of  July  27, 1861.  By  its 
provisions,  interest  is  only  to  be  paid  on  such  sums  as  have  been  refunded  or  mav  here- 
after be  refunded  under  the  authority  of  the  Act  of  Congress  and  explanatory  resolution ; 
no  interest  is  to  be  paid,  unless  it  was  actually  paid  out  or  lost  by  the  States,  and  then 
only  up  to  the  time  of  repayment  by  the  Government,  and  limited  to  six  per  cent. 

Claims  for  interest  have  been  filed  amounting  to  $3,188,887  25,  but  these  claims  are 
based  upon  a  higher  rate  of  interest  than  that  provided  in  the  bill;  other  States  have  not 
filed  interest  claims,  owing  to  the  ruling  of  the  Department,  but  if  the  bill  becomes  law 
they  will  have  proper  claims. 

Your  committee  are  of  opinion  that  these  interest  claims,  at  a  rate  such  as  the  General 
Government  was  obliged  to  pay,  are  a  just  and  proper  charge  against  the  Government. 
Immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  Acts,  Mr.  chase,  then  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in 
a  communication  to  the  Auditor  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  gave  assurances  that  interest  would 
be  paid.  Laws  were  passed  after  the  war  of  1812  to  reimburse  the  several  States  for 
moneys  expended  in  that  war,  with  similar  provisos  to  the  law  under  which  the  payments 
herein  considered  have  been  made. 

Subsequently  Congress  passed  laws  to  pay  interest,  as  is  provided  in  this  bill.  A  simi- 
lar bill  was  passed  by  Congress  to  reimburse  States  for  expenses  incurred  on  account  of 
the  Indian  wars,  with  like  necessity  of  subsequent  legislation  to  authorize  the  payment 
of  interest. 

It  seems  to  be  the  history  of  all  the  legislation  of  Congress  for  the  reimbursement  of 
States  for  war  expenditures  that  the  initial  statutes  have  always  failed  to  provide  for  the 
payment  of  interest,  but  in  every  instance,  previous  to  1861,  subsequent  Acts  provided 
for  the  payment  of  interest. 

It  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  the  settled  policy  of  Congress  to  repay  to  the  several 
States,  not  only  the  principal  sums  expended  by  them  in  aid  of  the  General  Government 
in  times  of  waV,  but  also  to  repay  interest  actually  paid  out,  not  exceeding  the  rate  paid 
by  the  General  Government  during  the  same  period. 

Your  committee  therefore  recommend  that  the  bill  do  pass. 

The  minority  cannot  but  think  that,  in  view  of  the  numerous  precedents 
set  out  in  the  foregoing  report  of  Mr.  Rowell,  and  in  view  of  the  well 


532 

established  policy  of  the  Government,  and  in  view  of  the  assurances  of 
the  governmental  authorities  when  the  States  assumed  these  obligations, 
and  in  view  of  what  the  minority  believes  to  be  but  equal  justice  to  all  the 
States,  the  bill  should  pass. 

This  was  as  much  a  necessary  expenditure  as  though  the  money  had 
been  paid  for  arms  or  ammunition.  Had  the  States,  generally  the  new 
Western  States,  which  had  not  plethoric  Treasuries,  refused  to  borrow 
the  money  with  which  to  organize  and  equip  their  quotas  of  troops,  the  Fed- 
eral Government  must  necessarily  have  done  so;  and  since  these  new  and 
financially  poor  States  came  patriotically  to  the  rescue  of  the  depleted 
National  Treasury  in  the  hour  of  the  Nation's  peril,  and  pledged  their  own 
credit  for  its  salvation,  no  good  reason  exists  why  they  should  not  be  reim- 
bursed their  whole  expenditure,  the  same  as  has  been  done  for  the  more 
fortunate  and  wealthy  States.     Equal  justice  to  all  should  be  our  motto. 

But  not  only  has  the  Government  made  similar  r^mbursements  after  all 
wars  previous  to  the  last  civil  war,  but  this  Congress  has  evinced  a  deter- 
mination to  perpetuate  the  same  policy.  The  bill  H.  R.  3877  was  on  the 
eighteenth  day  of  January,  1886,  introduced  in  this  House,  and  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Claims.  This  is  an  Act  for  the  relief  of  the  State  of 
Florida,  and  among  other  things  authorizes  the  repayment  of  interest  paid 
by  Florida  on  interest-bearing  securities  issued  by  said  State  for  the  pur- 
pose of  raising  money  with  which  to  equip  troops  for  different  Indian  wars. 
On  the  third  of  February  last  said  committee  reported  said  bill  back  with 
the  recommendation  that  it  do  pass,  and  the  same  is  now  on  the  calendar 
of  this  House.     The  report  is  No.  303,  and  is  as  follows: 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R.  3877)  to  authorize  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  settle  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Florida  on  account  of  expend- 
itures made  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities,  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  report: 

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  joint  resolution  of  Congress,  approved 
March  3, 1881,  the  Secretary  of  War  hiis  investigated,  audited,  and  made  a  report  to  Con- 
gress, May  22,  1882,  of  the  amount  due  the  State  of  Florida  for  expenditures  made  in  sup- 
pressing Indian  hostilities  in  that  State  between  the  first  day  of  December,  1855,  and  the 
first  day  of  January,  1860  (Ex.  Doc.  203,  Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session). 

The  expenditures  grew  out  of  the  Seminole  war  of  1855,  1856,  and  1857,  the  State  author- 
ities being  compelled,  in  the  presence  of  an  anticipated  and  subsequently  actual  outbreak 
of  the  Indians,  to  call  forth  the  militia  of  the  State,  the  force  of  the  United  States  troops 
then  on  duty  being  inadequate  to  the  protection  of  the  people.  The  report  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  (Ex.  Doc.  203)  fully  sets  forth  in  detail  the  items  of  expenditure  allowed  and 
disallowed,  the  total  amount  found  due  the  State  being  the  sum  of  $224,648  09. 

It  is  established  that  the  funds  at  the  command  of  the  Executive  of  the  State  of  Florida 
in  the  years  referred  to  were  insufficient  to  equip,  supply,  and  pay  the  troops  in  the  field, 
and  relying  upon  the  approval  given  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  through  the 
Secretary  of  War,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  May,  1857,  of  the  services  of  these  volunteers, 
the  State  Legislature,  in  order  to  provide  their  equipment  and  maintenance,  authorized 
the  issue  of  seven  per  cent  bonds. 

A  portion  of  the  bonds,  amounting  to  $132,000,  was  sold  by  the  Governor  to  the  Indian 
Trust  Fund  of  the  United  States,  and  the  proceeds  of  such  sale  were  disbursed  by  the 
Treasurer  of  the  State  for  the  "expenses  of  Indian  hostilities,"  as  appears  from  his  report 
to  the  Legislature  for  the  year  ending  October  31,  1857  (Ex.  Doc.  203,  Forty-seventh  Con- 
gress, first  session).  Another  portion  was  hypothecated  to  the  banks  of  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia  as  security  for  a  loan  of  $222,015,  and  $192,331  of  this  loan  was  disbursed 
directly  by  a  disbursing  agent  of  the  State  in  payment  of  "expenses  of  Indian  hostilities," 
including  pay  of  volunteers  (Ex.  Doc.  203,  Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session). 

This  case  is  one  where  the  Government,  through  the  President  of  the  United  States  by 
the  Secretary  of  War,  promised  to  pay  these  troops  when  mustered- into  the  United  States 
service,  and  they  would  have  been  long  since  paid  bv  the  Government  if  so  mustered,  but 
the  mustering  officer  arrived  in  the  State  after  they  had  been  mustered  out,  and  the  State 
was  compelled  to  borrow  money  with  which  to  pay  them  (see  letter  of  Secretary  of  War, 
hereto  appended). 

Congress  has  universally  paid  interest  to  the  States  where  they  have  paid  interest.  We 
cite  the  cases  where  interest  has  been  allowed  and  paid  for  moneys  advanced  during  the 
war  of  1812-15,  as  follows :    Virginia,  Act  March  3, 1825  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  132);  Marvland,  Act 


May  13,  1826  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  161);   Delaware,  Act  May  20,  1826  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  175);   New 
May  22,  1826  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  192);   Pennsylvania,  Act  March  3,  1827  (4  Stat. 


533 

L.,  p.  241);  South  Carolina,  Act  March  22,  1832  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  499);  Maine,  Act  of  March 
31,  1851  (9  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  626);  Massachusetts  and  Maine,  Act  of  July  8,  1870  (16  Stat,  at  L., 
p.  198). 

For  advances  for  Indian  and  other  wars  the  same  rule  has  been  observed  in  the  following 
cases :  Alabama,  Act  January  26  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  344);  Georgia,  Act  March  31, 1851  (9  Stat, 
at  L.,  p.  626) ;  Georgia,  Act  March  3, 1879  (20  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  385) ;  Washington  Territory,  Act 
March  3,  1859  (11  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  429);  New  Hampshire,  Act  January  27,  1852  (10  Stat,  at  L., 
p.  1);  California,  Act  of  August  5,  1854  (10  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  582);  California,  Act  August  18, 
1856  (11  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  91);  California,  Act  June  23,  1860  (12  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  104);  California, 
Act  July  25„  1868  (15  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  175);  California,  Act  March  3, 1881  (21  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  510); 
and  in  aid  of  the  Mexican  war  (see  statute  of  June  2,  1848). 

Attorney-General  Wirt,  in  his  opinion  on  an  analogous  case,  says: 

"The  expenditure  thus  incurred  forms  a  debt  against  the  United  States  which  they  are 
bound  to  reimburse.  If  the  expenditures  made  for  such  purpose  are  supplied  from  the 
Treasury  of  the  State,  the  United  States  reimburse  principal  without  interest;  but  if,  being 
unable  itself,  from  the  condition  of  its  own  finances,  to  meet  the  emergency,  such  State 
has  been  obliged  to  borrow  money  for  the  purpose,  and  thus  to  incur  a  debt  on  which  she 
herself  has  had  to  pay  interest,  such  debt  is  essentially  a  debt  due  bj^  the  United  States, 
and  both  the  principal  and  interest  are  to  be  paid  by  the  United  States  (see  Opinions  of 
Attornej's-General,  vol.  1,  p.  174)." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  precedent  for  the  payment  of  interest,  under  the  rule  adopted 
for  the  settlement  of  claims  of  war  of  1812-15,  and  Indian  wars  above  cited,  is  well  estab- 
lished. 

The  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  urgent  necessity  for  the  services  of  these 
troops,  and  the  action  of  the  President  and  the  Secretary  of  War,  are  well  established,  and 
create  an  equitable  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  General  Government,  and  as  it  is  clearly 
shown  by  Ex.  Doc.  203,  Forty-seventh  Congress,  that  the  State  of  Florida  not  only  bor- 
rowed money  from  the  Indian  Trust  Fund,  but  also  from  the  banks  of  the  States  of 
Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  for  their  payment,  upon  which  the  State  has  since  paid  inter- 
est, your  committee  have  concluded  to  recommend  the  passage  of  the  bill  with  the  follow- 
ing amendments: 

In  line  18  of  Section  1,  after  the  word  "it,"  insert  the  words  "upon  said  claim  or  claims." 

In  line  8  of  Section  2,  strike  out  the  words  "  and  to  pay  such  sum  so  ascertained  due 
the  said  State,"  and  insert  the  words,  "  and  shall  adjust  and  settle  the  claim  of  the  State 
therefor,  and  shall  pay  such  sum  as  may  be  ascertained  to  be  due  the  State  thereon," 

War  Department,  Washington,  D.  C,  May  21,  1857. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  eighth  instant, 
asking  an  approval  of  the  services  of  certain  volunteers  called  out  by  you,  and  in  reply  to 
inform  you  that  the  explanations  as  to  the  necessity  of  their  services  is  satisfactory,  and 
orders  have  been  issued  to  the  officer  commanding  in  Florida  to  muster  them  in  and  out 
of  the  service  of  the  United  States. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  B.  FLOOD,  Secretary  of  War. 

His  Excellency  James  E.  Broome,  Governor  of  Georgia. 

But  again,  on  March  3,  1886,  a  bill  (S.  1729)  of  substantially  the  same 
import  as  the  last  mentioned  House  bill,  was  introduced  into  the  Senate 
and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  which  committee  has 
since  made  the  following  report,  to  wit: 

The  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (S.  1293)  "to  authorize 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  settle  and  pay  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Florida  on 
account  of  expenditures  made  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities,  and  for  other  jjurposes," 
have  considered  the  same,  and  they  beg  leave  to  report: 

That  in  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  thej'^  had  under  consideration  the  same  subject,  and 
they  reported  by  bill  to  the  Senate.  A  report  accompanied  the  bill,  and  this  report,  now 
annexed,  is  adopted.  They  recommend  the  indefinite  postponement  of  bill  1293,  and  the 
substitution  of  a  bill  hereby  reported,  that  being  the  bill  reported  favorably  by  the  com- 
mittee in  the  Forty-eighth  Congress. 


[Senate  Report,  No.  109,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.] 

The  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (S.  230)  to  authorize 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  settle  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Florida  on  account  of 
expenditures  made  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities,  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following 
report : 

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  joint  resolution  of  Congress  approved 
March  3,  1881,  the  Secretary  of  War  has  investigated,  audited,  and  made  a  report  to  Con- 
gress, May  22,  1882,  of  the  amount  due  the  State  of  Florida  for  expenditures  made  in  sup- 


534 

I)ressmg  Indian  hostilities  in  that  State  between  the  first  day  of  December,  1855,  and  the 
first  day  of  January,  18G0.    (Ex.  Doc.  203,  Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.) 

The  expenditures  grew  out  of  the  Seminole  war  of  1855,  1856,  and  1857,  the  State 
authorities  being  compelled,  in  the  presence  of  an  anticipated  and  subsequently  actual 
outbreak  of  the  Indians,  to  call  forth  the  militia  of  the  State,  the  force  of  United  States 
troops  then  on  duty  being  inadequate  to  the  protection  of  the  people.  The  report  of  the 
Secretary  of  War'  (Ex.  Doc.  203)  fully  sets  forth  in  detail  the  items  of  expenditure 
allowed  and  disallowed,  the  total  amount  found  due  the  State  being  the  sum  of  $224,()48  09. 

It  is  established  that  the  funds  at  the  command  of  the  Executive  of  the  State  of  Florida 
in  the  years  referred  to  were  insufficient  to  equip,  supply,  and  pay  the  troops  in  the  field, 
and,  relying  upon  the  approval  given  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  the  Sec- 
retary of  War,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  May,  1857,  of  the  services  of  these  volunteers, 
the  State  Legislature,  in  order  to  provide  their  equipment  and  maintenance,  authorized 
the  issue  of  seven  per  cent  bonds. 

A  portion  of  the  bonds,  amovinting  to  $132,000,  was  sold  by  the  Governor  to  the  Indian 
Trust  Fund  of  the  United  States,  and  the  proceeds  of  such  sale  were  disbursed  by  the 
Treasurer  of  the  State  for  the  "expenses  of  Indian  hostilities,"  as  appears  from  his 
report  to  the  Legislature  for  the  year  ending  October  31,  1857.  Another  portion  was 
hypothecated  to  the  banks  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  as  security  for  a  loan  of  $222,- 
0i5,  and  $192,331  of  this  loan  was  disbursed  directly  by  a  disbursing  agent  of  the  State  in 
payment  of  "expenses  of  Indian  hostilities,"  including  pay  of  volunteers. 

The  portion  of  the  bonds  sold  to  the  United  States  for  the  "  Indian  Trust  Fund  "  is  still 
held  by  that  fund  and  accrued  interest  since  1857. 

The  State  of  Florida  paid  out  through  a  disbursing  agent,  as  shown  by  War 

Department  report $193,330  16 

And  through  warrants  from  State  Treasurer. _ 78,056  11 

Total $271,386  27 

Interest  on  this  sum  from  January  1,  1857,  to  April  1,  1883 498,672  27 

Total  cost  to  the  State  to  date $770,058  54 

We  quote  from  a  statement  made  by  the  United  States  Treasurer  of  the 
State  indebtedness  to  the  "Indian  Trust  Fund,"  June  12,  1882,  as  follows  : 

Loan  on  seven  per  cent  bonds  of  the  State  of  Florida $132,000 

Coupons  due  and  unpaid  January  1,  1857 138,040 

Interest  to  July  1,  1882,  from  January  1,  1857 50,820 

Interest  from  ^uly  1,  1882,  to  April  1,  1883-.. 6.930 

327,790  00 

Due  the  State $442,268  54 

There  appears,  therefore,  lawfully  due  the  State  of  Florida,  according  to  the  State 
Treasurer's  account,  the  sum  of  $770,058  '54,  being  the  principal  and  interest  of  the  sums 
which  she  borrowed  and  expended  on  behalf  of  the  United  States. 

If  from  this  sum  be  deducted  the  amount  loaned  the  State  by  the  Indian  Trust  Fund, 
principal  and  interest,  $327,790,  there  still  remains  due  the  State  the  sum  of  $442,268  54. 

In  auditing  the  accounts  of  the  State,  however,  the  Secretary  of  War  has  disallowed 
many  items  under  the  rules  and  regulations  governing  payments  to  the  regular  forces, 
and  yet,  with  all  his  disallowances,  after  an  exhaustive  examination,  he  finds  due  $224,- 
648  09.  Now,  if  we  add  the  interest  on  this  sum  from  January  1,  1857,  to  April  1,  1883,  to 
wit,  $412,790  86,  we  have  $637,438  95.  Now,  if  we  deduct  the  amount  due  the  Indian  Trust 
Fund,  to  wit,  $327,790,  there  is  still  due  the  State  the  sum  of  $309,(548  95. 

This  case  is  one  where  the  Government,  through  the  President  of  the  United  States 
and  the  Secretary  of  War,  promised  to  pay  these  troops  when  mustered  into  the  United 
States  service,  and  they  would  have  been  long  since  paid  by  the  Government,  if  so  mus- 
tered, but  the  mustering  officer  arrived  in  the  State  after  they  had  been  mustered  out, 
and  the  State  was  compelled  to  borrow  money  with  which  to  pay  them. 

Congress  has  universally  paid  interest  to  the  States  where  they  have  paid  interest. 
We  cite  the  cases  where  interest  has  been  allowed  and  paid  for  moneys  advanced  during 
the  war  of  1812-15,  as  follows :  Virginia,  Act  March  3,  1825  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  132) ;  Mary- 
land, Act  May  13,  1826  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  161);  Delaware,  Act  May  20,  1826  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p. 
175);  New.  York,  Act  May  22,  1826  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  192);  Pennsylvania,  Act  March  3,  1827 
(4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  241):  South  Carolina,  Act  March  22,  1832  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  499) ;  Massachu- 
setts, July  8,  1870  (16  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  198). 

For  advances  for  Indian  and  other  wars  the  same  rule  has  been  observed  in  the  fol- 
lowing cases :  Alabama,  Act  January  26,  1849  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  344) ;  Georgia,  Act  March  31, 

1851  (9  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  626);  Georgia,  Act  March  3,  1879  (20  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  385);  Washington 
Territory,  Act  March  3,  1859  (11  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  429);  New  Hampshire,  Act  January  27, 

1852  (10  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  1). 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  precedent  for  the  payment  of  interest  under  the  rule 
adopted  for  the  settlement  of  claims  of  war  of  1812-15  is  well  established. 

The  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  urgent  necessity  for  the  services  of  these 
troops  and  the  action  of  the  President  and  the  Secretary  of  War  create  an  equitable  obli- 
gation on  the  part  of  the  General  Government ;  and  as  the  State  of  Florida  not  only  bor- 
rowed money  from  the  Indian  Trust  Fund,  but  also  from  the  banks  of   the  States  of 


535 

Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  for  their  payment,  upon  which  the  State  has  since  paid 
interest,  your  committee  have  concluded  to  recommend  the  sum  of  $92,048  09  as  a  full 
payment  to  the  State  of  all  Indian  war  claims,  this  being  the  difference  after  deducting 
the  sum  borrowed  by  the  State  from  the  Indian  Trust  Fund  ($132,000)  from  the  amount 
found  due  the  State  by  the  Secretary  of  War  ($224,628  09),  and  to  further  recommend 
the  delivery  to  the  State  of  all  bonds  and  coupons  held  by  the  trustees  of  the  Indian 
Trust  Fund. 

The  committee  have  amended  the  bill  in  accordance  with  the  views  expressed  in  this 
report  and  they  recommend  the  passage  of  the  bill  as  thus  amended.  Accompanying  the 
report  is  a  communication  from  the  Secretary  of  War,  explaining  the  origin  and  the 
present  condition  of  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Florida  against  the  Government  of  the 
United  States, 

This  bill  is  now  on  the  Senate  calendar. 

It  does  not  now  seem  just,  or  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of 
national  honor,  that  after  so  treating  all  the  States  making  expenditures  in 
all  our  previous  wars,  such  as  are  hereinbefore  set  out,  that  now  we  should 
refuse  such  reimbursement  to  the  loyal  States  who  came  to  the  rescue  of  the 
Government  at  a  time  when  it  was  more  in  need  of  aid  and  support  than 
at  any  other  period  of  its  history. 

J.  LYMAN, 
For  Minority  of  Committee  on  War  Claims. 


EXHIBIT  No.  13. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  No.  303. 

CLAIM  OF  THE  STATE  OF  FLORIDA. 

February  3,  1886 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on 
the  state  of  Union  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Dougherty,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  3877  ] 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R.  3877)  to 
authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  settle  the  claim  of  the  State  of 
Florida  on  account  of  expenditures  made  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities, 
beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  report: 

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  joint  resolution  of  Congress, 
approved  March  3,  1881,  the  Secretary  of  War  has  investigated,  audited, 
and  made  a  report  to  Congress  May  22, 1882,  of  the  amount  due  the  State 
of  Florida  for  expenditures  made  in  suppressing  Indian  hostilities  in  that 
State  between  the  first  day  of  December,  1855,  and  the  first  day  of  January, 
1860  (Ex.  Doc.  203,  Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session). 

The  expenditures  grew  out  of  the  Seminole  war  of  1855, 1856,  and  1857, 
the  State  authorities  being  compelled,  in  the  presence  of  an  anticipated  and 
subsequently  actual  outbreak  of  the  Indians,  to  call  forth  the  militia  of  the 
State,  the  force  of  United  States  troops  then  on  duty  being  inadequate  to 
the  protection  of  the  people.  The  report  of  the  Secretary  of  War  (Ex.  Doc. 
203)  fully  set  forth  in  detail  the  items  of  expenditure  allowed  and  dis- 
allowed, the  total  amount  found  due  the  State  being  the  sum  of  $224,648  09. 

It  is  established  that  the  funds  at  the  command  of  the  Executive  of  the 
State  of  Florida,  in  the  years  referred  to,  were  insufficient  to  equip,  supply, 
and  pay  the  troops  in  the  field,  and  relying  Upon  the  approval  given  by  the 


536 

President  of  the  United  States,  through  the  Secretary  of  War,  on  the  twenty- 
first  day  of  May,  1857,  of  the  services  of  these  volunteers,  the  State  Legis- 
lature, in  order  to  provide  their  equipment  and  maintenance,  authorized 
the  issue  of  seven  per  cent  bonds. 

A  portion  of  the  bonds,  amounting  to  $132,000,  was  sold  by  the  Governor 
to  the  Indian  Trust  Fund  of  the  United  States,  and  the  proceeds  of  such 
sale  were  disbursed  by  the  Treasurer  of  the  State  for  the  "  expenses  of 
Indian  hostilities,"  as  appears  from  his  report  to  the  Legislature  for  the  year 
ending  October  31,  1857  (Ex.  Doc.  203,  Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  ses- 
sion). Another  portion  was  hypothecated  to  the  banks  of  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia,  as  security  for  a  loan  of  $222,015,  and  $192,331  of  this 
loan  was  disbursed  directly  by  a  disbursing  agent  of  the  State,  in  pay- 
ment of  "  expenses  of  Indian  hostilities,"  including  pay  of  volunteers  (Ex. 
Doc.  203,  Forty-seventh  Congress,  first  session). 

This  case  is  one  where  the  Government,  through  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  promised  to  pay  these  troops  when 
mustered  into  the  United  States  service,  and  they  would  have  been  long 
since  paid  by  the  Government  if  so  mustered,  but  the  mustering  officer 
arrived  in  the  State  after  they  had  been  mustered  out,  and  the  State  was 
compelled  to  borrow  money  with  which  to  pay  them  (see  letter  of  Secre- 
tary of  War, hereto  appended). 

Congress  has  universally  paid  interest  to  the  States  where  they  have 
paid  interest.  We  cite  the  cases  where  interest  has  been  allowed  and  paid 
for  moneys  advanced  during  the  war  of  1812-15,  as  follows  :  Virginia, 
Act  March  3,  1825  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  132);  Maryland,  Act  May  13,  1826 
(4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  161);  Delaware,  Act  May  20,  1826  (4  Stat.,  at  L., 
p.  175) ;  New  York,  Act  May  22, 1826  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  192) ;  Pennsylvania, 
Act  March  3,  1827  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  241);  South  Carolina,  Act  March  22, 
1832  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  499);  Maine,  Act  of  March  31,  1851  (9  Stat,  at  L., 
p.  626);  Massachusetts  and  Maine,  Act  of  July  8,  1870  (16  Stat,  at  L., 
p.  198). 

For  advances  for  Indian  and  other  wars  the  same  rule  has  been  observed 
in  the  following  cases  :  Alabama,  Act  of  January  26  (4  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  344) ; 
Georgia,  Act  March  31,  1851  (9  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  626);  Georgia,  Act  March 
3,  1879  (20  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  385);  Washington  Territory,  Act  March  3,  1859 
(11  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  429);  New  Hampshire,  Act  of  January  27,  1852  (10 
Stat,  at  L.,  p.  1) ;  California,  Act  of  August  5,  1854  (10  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  582) ; 
California,  Act  August  18, 1856  (11  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  91) ;  California,  Act  June 
23,  1860  (12  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  104);  California,  Act  July  25, 1868  (15  Stat,  at 
L.,  p.  175);  California,  Act  March  3,  1881  (21  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  510);  and  in 
aid  of  the  Mexican  war  (see  statute  of  June  2,  1848). 

Attorney-General  Wirt,  in  his  opinion  on  an  analogous  case,  says  : 

The  expenditure  thus  mcurred  forms  a  debt  against  the  United  States  which  they  are 
bound  to  reimburse.  If  the  expenditures  made  for  such  purpose  are  supphed  from  the 
Treasury  of  the  State,  the  United  States  reimburse  the  principal  without  interest ;  but  if 
being  unable  itself,  from  the  condition  of  its  own  finances,  to  meet  the  emergency,  such 
State  has  been  obliged  to  borrow  money  for  the  purpose,  and  thus  to  incur  a  debt  on 
which  she  herself  has  had  to  pay  interest,  such  debt  is  essentially  a  debt  due  by  the  United 
States,  and  both  the  principal  and  interest  are  to  be  paid  by  the  United  States  (see  Opin- 
ions of  Attorneys-General,  vol.  1,  p.  174). 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  precedent  for  the  payment  of  interest, 
under  the  rule  adopted  for  the  settlement  of  claims  of  war  of  1812-15, 
and  Indian  wars  above  cited,  is  well  established. 

The  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  urgent  necessity  for  the 
services  of  these  troops,  and  the  action  of  the  President  and  Secretary  of 


537 

War,  are  well  established,  and  create  an  equitable  obligation  on  the  part 
of  the  General  Government,  and  as  it  is  clearly  shown  by  Ex.  Doc.  203, 
Forty-seventh  Congress,  that  the  State  of  Florida  not  only  borrowed  money 
from  the  Indian  Trust  Fund,  but  also  from  the  banks  of  the  States  of 
Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  for  their  payment,  upon  which  the  State  has 
since  paid  interest,  your  committee  have  concluded  to  recommend  the 
passage  of  the  bill,  with  the  following  amendments : 

In  line  eighteen,  of  Section  1,  after  the  word  "  it,"  insert  the  words  "  upon 
said  claim  or  claims." 

In  line  eight,  of  Section  2,  strike  out  the  words,  "  and  to  pay  such  sum 
so  ascertained  due  the  said  State,"  and  insert  the  words, ''  and  shall  adjust 
and  settle  the  claim  of  the  State  therefor,  and  shall  pay  such  sum  as  may 
be  ascertained  to  be  due  the  State  thereon." 

Wab  Department,  Washington,  D.  C,  May  21, 1857. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  eighth  instant, 
asking  an  approval  of  the  services  of  certain  volunteers  called  out  by  you,  and  in  reply  to 
inform  you  that  the  explanation  as  to  the  necessity  of  their  services"  is  satisfactory,  and 
orders  haye  been  issued  to  the  officer  commanding  in  Florida  to  muster  them  in  and  out 
of  the  service  of  the  United  States. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  B.  FLOYD,  Secretary  of  War. 
His  Excellency  James  E.  Broome,  Governor  of  Florida. 


Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Kepresentatives.    Report  No.  518. 

ADVANCES  MADE   TO   UNITED   STATES  BY  MARYLAND  AND 

VIRGINIA. 

February  13,  1886 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House 
on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Shaw,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  1065.] 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  House  bill  1065,  sub- 
mit the  following  report: 

Bills  similar  in  all  respects  to  that  referred  to  this  committee  have  been 
before  Congress  since  the  Thirty-first  Congress.  The  records  of  Congress 
show  the  following  reports  recommending  the  passage  of  bills  for  the  pay- 
ment of  these  claims: 

September  16,  1850,  Thirty-first  Congress,  first  session,  H.  R.  494,  by 
Mc Daniel,  from  Committee  on  Claims. 

May  29,  1850,  same  Congress  and  session,  from  the  Senate  Committee 
on  Claims,  by  Senator  Underwood. 

January  6,  1852,  Thirty-second  Congress,  first  session,  H.  R.  2,  by  Mr. 
Rantoul,  from  Committee  on  Claims. 

January  30,  1852,  Thirty-second  Congress,  first  session,  S.  R.  59,  by  Mr. 
Brodhead. 

,  1853,  Thirty-second  Congress,  first  session,  S.  R.  278,  by  Mr.  Kerr, 

from  Committee  on  the  Judiciary. 

May  20,  1884,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session,  H.  R.  1563,  by  Mr. 
Mayberry,  from  Committee  on  the  Judiciary. 


538 

This  bill  was  before  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  of  the  House  for  the 
Forty-eighth  Congress;  was  then  fully  considered  and  favorably  reported 
and  placed  on  the  calendar  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House.  Your 
committee  have  reexamined  all  the  reports,  documents,  and  State  papers, 
as  well  as  the  contemporaneous  history  relating  hereto,  and  again  recom- 
mend the  passage  of  the  bill,  and  adopt  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
the  Judiciary  of  the  Forty-eighth  Congress,  with  some  additions  thereto. 

During  the  Revolution  the  Congress  assembled  in  places  which  were  ren- 
dered available  by  the  varying  circumstances  of  the  war  then  being  waged. 
Philadelphia,  Lancaster,  and  York,  in  Pennsylvania;  Princeton  and  Tren- 
ton, in  New  Jersey;  Annapolis,  in  Maryland,  and  New  York  City  were  sev- 
erally honored  by  the  meetings  of  this  assemblage.  Before  the  treaty  of 
peace,  Philadelphia  became  and  continued  the  seat  of  government  until 
June,  1873.  The  mutiny  of  the  Pennsylvania  line,  on  account  of  arrear- 
ages of  pay,  compelled  an  adjournment  of  the  sitting  of  Congress  to  Prince- 
ton, New  Jersey.  The  causes  which  led  to  this  sudden  and  unexpected 
adjournment  of  the  Federal  Congress  from  its  established  seat  made  the 
subject  of  a  Federal  Capital  a  fruitful  source  of  discussion,  continuing 
through  the  period  intervening  from  1783  to  1790.  On  the  seventh  of  Octo- 
ber, 1783,  Mr.  Gerry,  then  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  gave 
definite  shape  to  the  discussion  by  proposing  that  the  Federal  buildings  be 
provided  on  or  near  the  banks  of  the  Delaware  or  Potomac  Rivers,  with  a 
vested  right  in  the  soil  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  for  all  governmental  pur- 
poses in  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  This  proposition  of  Mr. 
Gerry  received  the  approval  of  Congress  at  that  time,  but  no  definite  steps 
were  taken  to  further  conclude  the  matter.  On  April  26,  1784,  the  action 
of  Congress  approving  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Gerry  was  repealed  without 
the  assignment  of  any  special  reasons  therefor. 

On  the  thirtieth  of  October,  1784,  three  Commissioners  were  appointed 
by  Congress  to  select  and  lay  out  a  Federal  District  for  the  purposes  of  the 
Government,  near  the  falls  and  on  either  side  of  the  Delaware  River.  The 
Commissioners  were  authorized  and  empowered  to  purchase  the  land  and 
to  erect  the  necessary  public  buildings  thereon.  On  account  of  the  failure 
of  Congress  to  make  an  appropriation,  the  purposes  contemplated  in  the 
Act  creating  the  Board  of  Commissioners  were  not  carried  into  effect.  On 
the  thirteenth  of  February,  1 785,  an  eftbrt  was  made  to  substitute  the  Poto- 
mac for  the  Delaware  River  as  a  proposed  site,  which  effort  finally  failed. 

On  the  tenth  day  of  May,  1787,  Mr.  Lee  of  Virginia,  introduced  a  reso- 
lution providing  for  the  erection  of  public  buildings  in  Georgetown,  on  the 
Potomac.  This  resolution,  like  its  predecessors,  failed  of  adoption.  The 
Constitution,  adopted  in  1787,  provided  for  a  Federal  District,  not  exceeding 
ten  miles  square,  for  the  permanent  seat  of  Government.  Action  was  not 
taken  to  give  effect  to  this  provision  of  the  Constitution  until  the  twenty- 
third  of  December,  1788,  when  Maryland  passed  an  Act  to  cede  to  the 
United  States  a  district  of  ten  miles  square,  the  Act  leaving  with  Congress 
to  decide  where  the  exact  site  should  be  selected. 

On  the  third  of  December,  1789,  the  State  of  Virginia  passed  an  Act  for 
the  cession  of  a  district  ten  miles  square,  and  suggesting  the  selection  of  a 
site  on  the  Potomac  River,  where  "the  States  of  Pennsylvania,  Maryland, 
and  Virginia  may  participate  in  such  location."  (Davis'  Laws,  District  of 
Columbia,  page  60.) 

No  action  was  taken  by  Congress  upon  either  of  these  Acts  until  Septem- 
ber 5,  1789,  when  a  resolution  passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  estab- 
lishing the  seat  of  Government  on  the  Susquehanna  River.  In  the  debates 
which  ensued  on  that  resolution,  the  word  "  Susquehanna  "  was  struck  out 


539 

and  that  of  "  Germantown  "  inserted.  This  resolution,  which  then  took 
the  form  of  a  bill,  passed  the  House,  but  failed  to  pass  the  Senate. 

On  the  thirty-first  of  May,  .1790,  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  "  to 
determine  the  permanent  seat  of  Congress  and  the  Government  of  the 
United  States."  Baltimore,  Georgetown,  Patapsco,  and  Havre  de  Grace 
were  mentioned  as  desirable  places  for  the  Capital  of  the  country.  But, 
finally,  the  Act  establishing  "the  temporary  and  permanent  seat  of  Gov- 
ernment for  the  United  States"  was  passed  July  16, 1790,  fixing  the  banks 
of  the  Potomac  River  as  the  most  desirable  site.  In  compliance  with  this 
Act,  President  Washington  visited  Williamsport,  Washington  County, 
Maryland,  but  not  liking  the  situation  selected  the  present  location,  and 
upon  his  report  the  Act  of  March  3,  1791,  was  passed,  amending  that  of 
July  16, 1790,  and  authorized  the  President  to  include  Hunting  Creek  and 
the  town  of  Alexandria  in  the  Federal  District.  Thus  the  present  District 
of  Columbia  was  located. 

It  is  shown  by  an  Act  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  passed 
December  3,  1789  (13  Henning,  page  33),  that  the  establishment  of  a  "sit- 
uation for  the  seat  of  the  General  Government,  central  and  convenient  to 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States  at  large,  having  due  regard  to  population, 
extent  of  territory,  and  a  free  navigation  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  through 
the  Chesapeake  Bay,  as  well  as  ready  communication  with  our  fellow  cit- 
izens on  the  western  frontier,"  engaged  the  attention  of  the  said  General 
Assembly,  and  on  the  tenth  of  December  that  General  Assembly  passed 
the  following: 

Resolved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  That  a  copy  of  the  foregoing  Act  of  the  third 
of  December,  1789,  be  transmitted  to  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland  without  delay, 
and  that  it  be  proposed  to  the  said  Assembly  to  unite  with  this  Legislature  in  an  applica- 
tion to  Congress,  that  in  case  Congress  shall  deem  it  expedient  to  establish  the  permanent 
seat  of  Government  of  the  United  States  on  the  banks  of  the  Potomac,  so  as  to  include  the 
cession  of  either  State,  or  a  part  of  the  cession  of  both  States,  this  Assembly  will  pass  an 
Act  for  advancing  a  sum  of  money,  not  exceeding  $120,000,  to  the  use  of  the  General  Gov- 
ernment, to  be  applied  in  such  manner  as  Congress  shall  direct,  towards  erecting  public 
buildings,  the  said  Assembly  of  Maryland  on  their  part  advancing  a  sum  not  less  than 
two  fifths  of  the  sum  advanced  by  this  State  for  the  like  purposes.  (See  Journal  of  the 
House  of  Delegates,  p.  115.) 

The  foregoing  resolution  was  prepared  and  introduced  into  the  General 
Assembly  of  Virginia  by  Hon.  John  Marshall,  then  a  member  thereof,  and 
afterwards  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

At  the  November  session,  1790,  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland 
passed  the  following  resolution: 

Whereas,  By  a  resolution  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  passed  on  the  tenth  day 
of  December,  1789,  it  was  proposed  to  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland  that  the  General 
Assembly  of  Virginia  will  pass  an  Act  for  advancing  a  sum  of  money,  not  less  than  $120,- 
000,  to  the  use  of  the  General  Government,  and  to  be  applied  in  such  manner  as  Congress 
shall  direct,  toward  erecting  public  buildings,  the  Assemblv  of  Maryland  on  their  part 
advancing  a  sum  not  less  than  three  fifths  of  the  sum  advanced  by  the  said  General 
Assembly  of  Virginia;  which  resolution  came  so  late  to  the  last  General  Assembly  of 
Maryland  that  it  could  not  be  acted  upon,  and  was,  therefore,  referred  to  this  present  ses- 
sion ;  and  whereas,  this  General  Assembly  doth  highly  approve  of  the  object  of  said  reso- 
lution, and  is  desirous  of  doing  everything  required  on  the  part  of  Maryland  for  carrying 
the  same  into  effect,  on  a  second  reading  of  said  resolution. 

Resolved,  That  this  House  doth  accede  to  the  proposition  contained  in  said  resolution  of 
the  Assembly  of  Virginia,  and  will  advance  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
purposes  mentioned  in  said  resolution,  the  sum  of  $72,000,  payable  to  his  order  in  three 
equal  yearly  payments. 

On  the  twenty-fourth  of  December,  1790,  the  General  Assembly  of  Vir- 
ginia passed  the  following: 


540 

AN  ACT 
Concerning  an  advance  of  money  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  for  public  buildings. 

Whereas,  The  General  Assembly  of  Maryland  have  acceded  to  a  proposition  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  this  commonwealth,  contained  in  their  resolution  of  the  tenth  day 
of  December,  1789,  concerning  an  advance  of  money  to  the  General  Government  to  be 
applied  towards  erecting  public  buildings  at  the  permanent  seat  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  should  the  Congress  deem  it  expedient  to  fix  it  on  the  bank  of  the  Poto- 
mac; and  whereas.  Congress  has  passed  an  Act  for  establishing  the  said  seat  of  Govern- 
ment on  the  Potomac ; 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly,  That  $120,000  shall  be  advanced  by  this  common- 
wealth to  the  General  Government,  payable  in  three  equal  yearly  payments,  and  to  be 
applied  towards  erecting  public  buildings  at  the  permanent  seat  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  on  the  bank  of  the  Potomac,  and  the  auditor  of  public  accounts  is  hereby 
directed  to  issue  his  warrants  on  the  Treasurer  to  the  amount  of  $120,000,  payable  in  the 
manner  hereinbefore  directed,  to  the  order  of  the  President  of  the  United  States.  (See  13 
Henning,  p.  125.) 

The  records  of  the  Treasury  Department  of  Virginia  show,  by  certified 
copies,  that  the  first  payment  of  this  advance  to  the  United  States  was 
made  April  15,  1791,  and  the  last  on  January  8,  1795,  and  making,  on  the 
whole,  the  sum  of  $120,000.  And  by  the  eleventh  section  of  the  Act  of 
Maryland,  passed  December  19,  1791,  it  was — 

Resolved,  That  the  Treasurer  of  the  Western  Shore  be  empowered  and  required  to  pay 
the  $72,000  agreed  to  be  advanced  to  the  President  by  resolution  of  the  last  session  of 
Assembly,  in  sums  as  the  same  may  come  to  his  hands  as  the  appointed  funds,  without 
waiting  for  the  day  appointed  for  the  payment  thereof.  (See  Davis'  Laws  District  of 
Columbia,  p.  70.) 

At  the  same  time,  to  secure  the  prompt  payment  of  the  sum  advanced, 
the  Treasurer  of  the  Western  Shore  was  authorized  to  sell  the  "reserved 
lands  to  the  westward  of  Fort  Cumberland,"  and  also  "the  lands  lying  in 
Dorcester  County,  and  now  in  the  possession  of  the  tribe  of  Choptank 
Indians,  to  sell  and  convey  the  right  of  this  State  to  one  hundred  acres  of 
land  at  Fort  Frederick,  in  Washington  County."  (See  second  volume 
Scharf  s  History  of  Maryland,  p.  566.) 

In  the  Act  of  neither  State  is  allusion  made  to  the  site  of  the  seat  of 
Government  being  a  necessary  condition  of  the  advance  of  money,  except 
as  may  be  inferred  from  the  use  of  the  words,  "  in  case  Congress  shall  deem 
it  expedient  to  establish,"  etc.,  and  these  would  have  included  and  applied 
to  the  proposed  location,  which  embraced  Pennsylvania  as  well  as  Mary- 
land and  Virginia. 

It  is  an  established  fact  of  history  that  very  deep  feeling  was  engendered 
in  the  discussion  leading  to  the  location  of  the  seat  of  Government.  The 
question  became  largely  sectional,  and  at  one  time  threatened  to  lead  to  a 
rupture  of  the  Union.  To  ward  off"  such  deplorable  consequences  a  loca- 
tion was  sought  at  a  point  which  would  be  considered  central  to  territory 
and  population,  accessible  to  navigation,  and  convenient  to  the  western 
frontier. 

No  contemporaneous  authority  has  been  produced  or  can  be  found  which 
intimates  that  the  Congress  was  influenced  by  the  advances  of  Virginia 
and  Maryland  in  locating  the  permanent  seat  of  Government  on  the  Poto- 
mac, nor  can  any  line  of  history  be  shown  that  "in  the  then  impoverished 
condition  of  the  country  a  pecuniary  argument  of  this  sort  had  any  influ- 
ence on  the  question  of  location  "  of  the  Capital. 

Chief  Justice  Marshall,  writing  the  life  of  General  Washington  (volume 
5,  chapter  iv,  page  259),  says  : 

At  length  a  compact  respecting  the  temporary  and  permanent  seat  of  Government  was 
entered  into  between  the  friends  of  Philadelphia  and  the  Potomac,  whereby  it  was  stipu- 


541 

lated  that  Congress  should  adjourn  to  and  hold  their  session  in  Philadelphia  for  ten  years, 
during  which  time  the  buildings  for  the  accommodation  of  the  Government  should  be 
erected  at  some  place  to  be  selected  on  the  Potomac,  to  which  the  Government  should 
remove  at  the  expiration  of  the  term. 

This  compact  having  united  the  representatives  of  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware  with  the 
friends  of  the  Potomac  in  favor  of  both  the  temporary  and  permanent  residence  which 
had  been  agreed  on  between  them,  a  majority  was  produced  in  favor  of  the  two  situations, 
and  a  bill  was  brought  into  the  Senate  in  conformity  with  the  previous  arrangement  and 
passed  both  Houses  by  small  majorities.  This  Act  was  immediately  followed  by  an 
amendment  to  the  bill  then  depending  before  the  Senate  for  funding  the  debt  of  the 
nation.  *  *  *  When  the  question  was  taken  in  the  House  two  members  representing 
districts  on  the  Potomac,  who  in  all  previous  stages  of  the  business  had  voted  against  the 
assumption,  declared  themselves  in  its  favor,  and  thus  the  majority  was  changed. 

Not  one  word  is  said  about  "  a  pecuniary  argument,"  Chief  Justice 
Marshall's  authority  is  selected  because  of  all  the  public  men  of  the  times 
he  best  understood  the  motives  underlying  the  action  of  Virginia  in  the 
matter  of  these  advances.  He  had  been  a  member  of  the  Virginia  House 
of  Delegates  from  1788  to  1793,  when  these  advances  were  proposed.  He 
knew  that  the  title  of  the  Act  making  the  advance  had  been  amended  on 
final  passage  by  changing  the  word  "grant"  to  "advance,"  and  his  pro- 
fessional-eminence  at  that  early  day  precludes  the  supposition  that  he 
would  in  a  public  statute  use  the  word  "  advance "  to  convey  a  gift  or 
donation. 

The  location  of  the  Federal  Capital  at  its  present  site  was  the  "  sugar 
plum  "  which  Mr.  Jefferson  said  was  given  to  the  South  for  their  adoption 
of  the  "Assumption  Bill,"  which  was  a  "  bitter  pill "  to  those  States,  and 
that  it  was  necessary  that  some  one  consistent  measure  should  be  adopted 
to  sweeten  it  a  little  to  them.     (Jefferson's  Works,  vol.  iv,  p.  448.) 

The  present  location  of  the  Federal  Capital  was  a  compromise  settled 
upon  higher  considerations  than  would  be  involved  in  any  advance  of 
money  which  Virginia  and  Maryland  could  have  offered. 

In  the  fourth  section  of  the  Act  of  July  16,  1790,  authority  was  given  to 
the  President  to  accept  "grants  of  money,"  to  be  used  in  defraying  the 
expenses  of  purchasing  the  site  and  erecting  public  buildings  thereon.  And 
it  is  contended  that  to  this  acceptance  of  grants  his  authority  was  clearly 
limited.  It  is  further  contended  that  the  authorities  of  Virginia  and  Mary- 
land were  presumed  to  know  and  understand  the  provisions  of  this  law; 
and  it  is  further  insisted  that,  despite  the  use  of  the  word  "advance,"  the 
moneys  paid  over  by  these  States  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
were  paid  in  consideration  of  the  location  of  the  seat  of  Government  at  this 
point,  assuming  that  from  the  present  location  benefits  would  accrue  to  the 
neighboring  States  sufficient  to  constitute  a  valuable  consideration  for  their 
offerings. 

As  to  the  first  objection,  that  the  President  was  authorized  to  accept 
grants  of  money  only,  we  may  appeal  with  confidence  to  the  words  of 
President  Washington  in  explanation  of  his  understanding  of  the  authority 
conferred  upon  him  and  of  the  action  of  the  States  in  the  premises.  In  a 
letter  addressed  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Federal  District,  written  from 
Philadelphia  under  date  of  August  29,  1793,  President  Washington  asks: 

In  what  manner  would  it  be  proper  to  state  the  account  with  the  States  of  Virginia  and 
Maryland,  they  having  advanced  money  which  has  not  been  all  expended  on  the  objects 
for  which  it  was  appropriated?  (Letter  on  file  in  the  State  Department  and  cited  in  Rep. 
H.  R.  494,  Thirty-first  Congress,  first  session ;  and  in  Report  5,  Thirty-second  Congress, 
first  session.) 

From  this  clause  there  is  a  clear  inference  that  President  Washington 
regarded  this  money  as  an  advance,  rendering  necessary  an  account  of  it 
to  be  kept  with  those  States. 


542 

It  will  not  be  seriously  contended  that  the  receiver  of  another's  money 
will  be  permitted  to  assume  the  character  of  a  beneficiary,  when,  by  the 
express  terms  under  which  he  has  been  made  the  receiver,  a  contrary 
intention  is  expressed. 

While  it  is  contended  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  States  to  know  the 
authority  conferred  upon  the  President  to  accept  grants  only,  it  may  be 
contended  with  like  force  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Government  and  its 
agents  to  take  notice  of  the  nature  and  provisions  of  the  grant  as  expressed 
in  the  public  Acts  of  the  States,  and  in  which  they  have  carefully  guarded 
their  rights  in  the  premises. 

Again,  Congress  having  failed  to  carry  into  effect  the  prior  resolutions 
establishing  the  seat  of  Government,  solely  on  account  of  its  poverty  and 
consequent  inability  to  make  the  necessary  appropriations  therefor,  it  may 
be  fairly  urged  on  behalf  of  the  claimants  that  the  money  advanced  to 
the  use  of  the  Government  was  intended  to  avoid  a  repetition  of  previous 
failures.  In  confirmation  of  this  intention  to  advance  or  lend,  and  not  to 
grant  their  moneys,  the  historical  fact  is  urged  on  behalf  of  the  State  of 
Virginia  that  an  offer  was  made  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia  on 
the  twenty-eighth  of  May,  1783,  in  the  following  words: 

That  if  the  honorable  Congress  should  esteem  the  city  of  Williamsburg  a  fit  place  for 
their  session,  the  Assembly  will  present  them,  on  their  removal  thereto,  and  during  their 
continuance  therein,  with  the  palace,  the  capitol,  and  all  public  buildings,  and  three  hun- 
dred acres  of  land  adjoining  the  said  city,  together  with  a  sum  of  money  not  exceeding 
$100,000  of  this  State's  currency. 

To  this  resolution  is  attached  the  following  proviso: 

Provided  always,  That  should  Congress  thereafter  remove  from  the  city  of  Williamsburg, 
or  from  the  land  mentioned,  that  in  such  case  the  land  so  ceded,  with  the  buildings,  shall 
revert  to  the  commonwealth. 

It  seems  that  this  clearly  demonstrates  that  when  Virginia  intended  a 
present,  she  so  expressed  herself;  and  that  when  her  intention  was  only  to 
advance  money  to  the  use  of  the  Government,  she  was  equally  guarded 
and  explicit  in  her  language.  The  journals  of  the  House  of  Delegates 
clearly  show  that  the  use  of  the  word  "  advance  "  was  with  peculiar  deliber- 
ation, for  one  of  the  last  acts  in  the  final  adoption  of  the  Act  was  to  amend 
the  title  by  substituting  the  word  "  advance  "  for  the  word  "  grant,"  thereby 
causing  an  agreement  between  the  title  and  the  body  of  the  Act.  The  Act 
of  the  State  of  Maryland  follows  strictly  that  of  Virginia. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  enlarge  upon  the  use  of  the  word  "  advance  "  as 
contained  in  these  several  Acts  and  resolutions;  it  has  but  one  interpreta- 
tion, which  is  that  of  a  right  of  reimbursement.  To  interpret  this  word  as 
used  in  the  resolutions  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  as  originating  a  gift  is 
forced  and  extraordinary.  It  is  clearly  used  as  implying  and  anticipating 
an  accounting  between  the  parties,  and  familiar  instances  of  its  use  in  this 
relation  in  commercial  transactions  will  readily  occur  to  the  mind.  It 
may  tend  to  throw  light  upon  the  intention  of  the  States  in  the  premises  to 
refer  to  the  system  of  raising  revenue  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, which  was  by  requisition  upon  the  several  States;  and,  although  that 
system  had  been  superseded  by  the  mode  now  in  use,  yet  it  was  at  a  period 
so  very  recent  after  the  adoption  of  the  present  mode  that  habits  and  ideas 
growing  out  of  the  former  system  would  still  have  their  force  and  effect. 
How  natural  was  it,  then,  that  in  making  a  loan  to  the  General  Govern- 
ment the  States  of  Virginia  and  Maryland  should  make  use  of  terms  to 


543 

which  they  had  become  famUiar  under  the  Government,  which  had  been 
so  recently  changed. 

The  advance  of  $192,000  by  Virginia  and  Maryland  enabled  President 
AVashington  to  begin  the  actual  construction  of  the  public  buildings,  which 
gave  a  value  to  lands  theretofore  valueless.  The  building  of  the  Capital 
converted  a  wilderness  into  city  lots,  the  proceeds  of  the  subsequent  sales 
of  which  enabled  the  Commissioners  to  continue  the  work  on  the  public 
buildings  until  1798,  when  the  first  appropriation  from  the  Federal  Treasury 
was  available. 

In  a  letter  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  Secretary  of  State,  dated  March  31, 
1791,  General  Washington  says: 

The  terms  entered  into  by  me  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  with  the  landholders  of 
Georgetown  and  Carrollsburg  are,  that  all  the  land  from  Rock  Creek  along  the  river  to 
the  Eastern  Branch,  and  so  upwards  to  or  above  the  ferry,  including  a  breadth  of  about 
one  and  one  half  miles,  the  whole  containing  from  three  thousand  to  five  thousand  acres, 
is  ceded  to  the  public  on  condition  that  when  the  whole  shall  be  surveyed  and  laid  off  as 
a  city  (which  Major  L'Enfant  is  now  directed  to  do),  the  present  proprietors  shall  retain 
every  other  lot ;  and  for  such  part  of  the  land  as  may  be  taken  for  public  use  for  squares, 
walks,  etc.,  they  shall  be  allowed  at  the  rate  of  £25  (|66  67)  per  acre,  the  public  having  the 
right  to  reserve  such  parts  of  the  wood  on  the  land  as  may  be  thought  necessary  to  be 
preserved  for  ornament;  the  landholders  to  have  the  use  and  profits  of  all  the  ground 
until  the  city  is  laid  off  into  lots,  and  sale  is  made  of  these  lots,  which  by  this  agreement 
become  public  property.  Nothing  is  allowed  for  the  ground  which  is  occupied  as  streets 
and  alleys.    (See  Sparks,  x,  p.  147.) 

Mr.  Jefferson,  replying  under  date  of  April  tenth,  says: 

The  acquisition  of  ground  is  really  noble,  considering  that  only  £25  an  acre  is  to  be  paid 
for  any  ground  taken  for  the  public,  and  the  streets  not  to  be  considered,  which  will  in  fact 
reduce  it  to  about  £19  per  acre.    (Varnum,  p.  27.) 

In  the  report  of  Thomas  Monroe,  Superintendent  of  Public  Buildings, 
dated  February  27,  1816,  and  embracing  the  receipts  and  expenditures  in 
relation  to  the  public  buildings  from  1791  to  1816,  the  moneys  advanced 
by  Virginia  and  Maryland  are  carried  into  the  general  accounts  of  receipts, 
with  appropriations  from  the  Federal  Treasury  and  with  the  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  lots  and  other  property.  In  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Public 
Buildings,  made  to  the  House  of  Representatives  on  February  16, 1820,  the 
following  language  is  used: 

Before  closing  their  report  the  committee  think  it  proper  to  observe  that  in  so  far  as  the 

Sublic  buildings  have  advanced,  the  unexpected  expenses  of  their  repairs,  since  their  con- 
agration,  inclusive,  the  appropriations  heretofore  made,  and  to  be  made,  until  they  are 
completed,  can  only  be  considered  for  the  most  part  as  advances  made  at  the  Federal 
Treasury,  which  will  be  reimbursed  by  the  sales  of  the  public  property  in  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington, which  has  cost  the  Government  but  litte.  At  the  time  of  the  cession  of  this  prop- 
erty as  the  seat  of  government,  it,  the  property,  was  considered  as  a  source  of  revenue 
which  would  be  amply  sufficient  for  the  erection  of  the  public  buildings,  and  if  the  docu- 
ment herewith  presented,  marked  D,  is  not  unreasonable,  it  will  yet  be  sufficient  to  com- 
plete such  as  are  undertaken.  But  for  their  destruction,  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  correctness 
of  the  calculation  made  many  years  since  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  funds  for  its  object. 

Document  D,  referred  to,  concludes  that — 

If  this  expectation  should  be  realized,  it  will  appear  that  the  public  buildings  have  been 
erected  from  the  proceeds  of  property  created  by  locating  the  seat  of  government  in  this 
place,  and  that  a  fund  will  remain  for  further  improvements. 

Mr.  Meigs,  in  a  report  from  the  Committee  on  the  Expenditures  upon  the 
Public  Buildings,  made  to  the  House  of  Representatives  March  21,  1820, 
remarks  that — 


544 

It  appears  that  the  valuation  of  the  public  lots  and  actual  amount  of  sales,  added  to  the 
donations  from  the  States  of  Virginia  and  Maryland,  exceed  the  national  expenditure 
upon  public  buildings  by  nearly  $400,000.  (See  American  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  Miscella- 
neous.) 

Thus  it  appears  from  reports  of  commissioners  and  committees  that  the 
Government  has  reahzed  more  from  the  sales  of  lots  than  it  paid  from  the 
Treasury,  as  well  as  a  large  sum  in  excess  of  the  amount  advanced  to  its 
use  by  the  States  of  Virginia  and  Maryland. 

The  land  obtained  by  President  Washington  would  have  remained  of  lit- 
tle value  but  for  the  action  of  Virginia  and  Maryland  advancing  $192,000, 
which,  giving  a  fixity  and  permanence,  by  actual  construction  of  the  public 
buildings,  to  the  national  capital,  and  imparted  to  the  wilderness  the  qual- 
ity of  city  lots.  This  $192,000  not  only  started  the  public  buildings,  but  it 
also  augmented  the  value  of  the  public  property  obtained  from  the  land- 
holders, by  making  the  construction  of  the  public  buildings  certain,  which, 
without  that  action  by  these  States,  could  not  have  been  begun,  as  the 
Congress  had  not  appropriated  any  money  for  the  public  buildings.  In  this 
double  light,  first,  of  enabling  the  commissioners  to  go  on  with  the  public 
buildings,  and,  secondly,  of  the  value  imparted  to  the  city  lots,  must  the 
action  of  these  States  be  reviewed.  So  far  from  being  a  mere  selfish  act  to 
secure  the  benefits  of  adjacency  to  the  Federal  Capital,  this  advance  by 
these  States  was  the  means  of  making  valuable  the  whole  property  acquired 
by  President  Washington  for  the  Government.  The  site  of  the  Capital  on 
the  Delaware  had  been  abandoned  for  want  of  money  to  commence  the 
public  buildings.  A  like  fate  overhung  that  on  the  Potomac,  and  would 
probably  have  overtaken  it  had  not  Virginia  and  Maryland  furnished  the 
first  money  that  gave  impetus  and  life  to  the  young  Capital. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  any  two  States  of  the  Union  would,  for  nearly 
fifty  years,  by  joint  resolutions  of  their  General  Assemblies,  unanimously 
adopted,  persistently  instruct  their  Senators  and  request  their  Representa- 
tives to  urge  upon  the  Congress  the  payment  of  an  improper  claim. 

The  General  Assembly  of  Maryland,  by  joint  resolution  in  1842,  and  by 
the  testimonials  of  her  agents  in  1832,  and  by  joint  resolutions  of  February 
20,  1878,  and  again  by  joint  resolutions  of  1882,  and  the  State  of  Virginia 
by  joint  resolutions  of  1850,  and  subsequently,  have  urged  upon  the  Con- 
gress the  payment  of  these  advances. 

It  is  not  possible  that  Legislature  after  Legislature  in  two  States,  from 
1842  to  1884,  could  have  been  so  constituted  as  not  to  have  contained  a 
single  member  in  either  house  who  would  not  have  questioned  and  denied 
the  right  of  the  States  to  a  return  of  this  money,  if  the  law  and  the  facts  of 
history  had  not,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Legislatures  of  these  States,  fully 
established  these  transactions  to  have  been  advances,  and  not  grants,  gifts^ 
or  donations.  It  is  contended  that  these  States  have  slept  upon  their  rights 
in  the  matter  of  their  claims,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Govern- 
ment has  not  always  been  in  condition  to  meet  these  demands,  not  being 
out  of  debt  until  1837;  and  it  can  be  justly  urged  that  the  Government, 
being  the  recipient  of  the  favor,  should  have  made  the  first  movement 
towards  its  repayment. 

The  long  delay,  the  very  "staleness  of  this  claim,"  is  consonant  with 
the  very  spirit  of  the  transaction  and  with  the  very  essence  of  an  advance. 
These  States  designed  that  the  infant  Government  of  the  United  States, 
then  without  money  or  credit,  should  enjoy  the  use  of  their  money  so  long 
as  the  United  States  was  bvirdened  with  debt  and  unable  to  repay  without 
embarrassment.  In  that  spirit  no  demand  for  repayment  was  made  while 
the  revolutionary  debt  and  the  debt  of  the  war  of  1812-15  were  unpaid. 


545 

The  first  surplus  of  any  amount  in  the  United  States  Treasury  was  reported 
in  1836,  and  was  distributed  that  Winter.  The  panic  of  1837  so  prostrated 
all  kinds  of  business  that  only  three  fourths  of  the  surplus  was  distributed; 
the  remaining  fourth  never  was  distributed.  There  was  no  surplus  again 
reported  until  1841,  and  Maryland  made  her  demand  in  1842,  and  Vir- 
ginia in  1850.  Thus  early  these  States  instituted  steps  for  the  collection  of 
these  advances;  their  applications  have  been  favorably  considered  by  com- 
mittees of  the  House  and  Senate,  and  upon  two  occasions  bills  for  their 
relief  have  passed  the  Senate  but  failed  to  be  reached  in  the  House. 

The  Government  has  neglected  its  duty  in  this  regard,  and  the  States, 
after  a  lapse  of  nearly  half  a  century,  and  embarrassed  in  their  own  finan- 
cial affairs,  and  when  in  the  meantime  the  Government  had  become  pros- 
perous and  wealthy,  sought,  and  have  been  constantly  seeking,  to  reclaim 
these  advances.  In  a  transaction  marked  with  such  patriotic  devotion,  it 
was  not  unbecoming  in  the  States  to  wait  long  and  patiently  in  expectation 
that  the  money  advanced  would  be  tendered  without  the  embarrassment  of 
a  demand. 

The  States  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  now,  through  their  respective  Leg- 
islatures, request  the  repayment  of  their  advances,  and  by  such  request 
have  placed  a  construction  upon  the  acts  of  their  States  which  it  would  be 
unjust  and  ungrateful  for  the  Government  as  a  beneficiary  to  reject  or  deny. 

It  may  not  be  without  propriety  to  close  this  report  with  the  remarks  of 
distinguished  Senators  upon  a  bill  similar  to  that  referred  to  this  com- 
mittee. In  the  debate  in  the  Forty-third  Congress  on  a  bill  for  the  relief 
of  the  State  of  Virginia — 

Mr.  Seward  of  New  York.  Mr.  President:  The  State  of  Virginia,  beyond  all  doubt, 
contributed  to  the  erection  of  this  Capitol  and  of  those  public  edifices  which  we  now  use 
for  the  Government  of  the  United  States  the  sum  here  specified.  She  either  advanced  that 
money  as  a  loan  to  be  repaid  at  some  future  time,  or  she  gave  it  to  the  Government  of  the 
United  States.  If  this  money  was  advanced  as  a  loan,  the  advance  created  a  debt  which 
it  is  now  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  discharge.  If,  however,  the  money  was  con- 
tributed by  way  of  gift  or  donation  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  I  do  not 
see  that  it  materially  alters  the  case.  In  the  one  case  there  would  be  an  obligation  already 
existing,  a  debt  already  to  be  paid  for  money  which  has  been  borrowed.  In  the  other 
case  there  is  an  advance  which  is  the  basis  of  a  moral  obligation  which  the  Government 
may  at  any  time  recognize  and  assume,  and  that  creates  the  debt.  *  *  *  This  moral 
obligation  strikes  me  as  peculiarly  appealing  to  the  sense  of  honor  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States.  We  are  here  occupying  an  edifice  which  was  in  part  built  for  us  by 
the  State  of  Virginia;  she  is  comparatively  poor;  we  are  only  too  rich.  I  think  it  does 
not  comport  with  the  pride  and  dignity  of  the  United  States  that  Congress  and  the  execu- 
tive departments  should  occupy  halls  for  which  they  are  indebted  in  whole  or  in  part  to 
the  generosity  of  the  States.  *  *  *  I  am  for  discharging  this  obligation  and  securing 
to  ourselves  the  right  to  feel  that  this  Government  owes  nothing  but  gratitude  to  these 
States. 

Mr.  Fish  of  New  York.  Mr.  President:  I  shall  vote  for  the  appropriation  of  this  money 
with  great  pleasure.  I  do  not  care  to  consider  the  question  whether  this  money  was  origi- 
nally loaned  or  granted.  It  is  enough  for  me  that  the  States  now  claim  it  as  a  loan,  and  I 
am  willing  to  vote  to  pay  them.  *  *  *  1  vote  for  this  bill  on  the  pure  merits  of  the 
claim. 

Mr.  Wade  of  Ohio.  The  language  connected  with  the  original  grant — it  being  some- 
times called  a  gift,  sometimes  a  donation,  sometimes  an  advance,  sometimes  one  thing 
and  sometimes  another— would  seem  to  imply  that  perhaps  it  was  not  then  expected  the 
money  would  be  repaid.  All  these  considerations,  however,  did  not  satisfy  me  that  we 
ought  not  to  repay  the  money.  I  care  but  little  what  the  expectation  was  at  that  time. 
If  these  States,  actuated  by  magnanimity,  and  for  the  purpose  of  advancing  the  public 
good,  gave  us  money  to  erect  the  public  buildings  at  that  day,  when  our  Treasury  was 
comparatively  empty,  and  when  it  was  really  an  object  to  have  such  a  donation,  I  would 
repay  them.  *  *  *  The  great  stubborn  fact  still  stands  out,  that  while  the  nation  was 
poor  we  availed  ourselves  of  the  generosity  of  those  States  and  took  the  monej'^  which 
they  offered.  Whether  by  way  of  gift  or  loan  I  care  not.  At  all  events,  those  who  had 
the  right  to  say  on  what  conditions  they  granted  the  money,  now  say  it  was  by  way  of 
advancement,  to  be  repaid  at  some  convenient  time  in  the  future.  On  this  question  I 
will  not  stand  here  to  contend  with  a  sovereign  State.  When  she  has  made  an  advance- 
ment or  loan,  or  even  a  donation,  if  you  please  to  call  it  so,  and  we  have  availed  ourselves 

35'" 


546 

of  its  benefits,  I  will  not,  when  she  asks  to  be  repaid,  and  when  we  have  an  overflowing 
Treasury,  stand  here  to  say  that  the  money  was  a  gift,  and  therefore  ought  not  to  be  paid. 
*  *  *  I  do  not  wish  to  have  this  Government  indebted  to  any  State  in  this  Union  or  to 
anybody.  I  shall  feel  that  it  is  under  an  obligation  to  the  States  of  Maryland  and  Vir- 
ginia until  this  money  shall  have  been  paid.  In  my  judgment,  the  money  ought  to  be 
repaid.  *  *  *  It  was  a  noble,  generous  act,  and  we  ought  now  to  respond  to  it  in  the 
same  spirit. 

Upon  the  question  of  interest  to  be  computed  in  cases  like  those  pending, 
not  only  does  simple  justice  demand  such  computation,  since  a  repayment 
of  the  money  was  first  demanded  by  the  States,  but  numerous  precedents 
sanction  this  course. 

Among  the  Acts  passed  to  provide  for  paying  interest  on  such  advances 
made  by  the  States  and  Territories  in  the  past  may  be  cited  those  on 
account  of  the  war  of  1812  and  1814,  for  the  Indians  wars,  and  for  the 
Mexican  war. 

The  payment  of  advances  made  for  the  use  of  the  Government  in  the 
Mexican  war  was  provided  for  by  a  general  Act  passed  June  2, 1848,  which 
contains  the  following  provision  with  reference  to  interest: 

That  in  refunding  money  under  this  Act  it  shall  be  lawful  to  pay  interest  at  six  per 
centum  per  annum  on  all  sums  advanced  by  States,  corporations,  or  individuals,  in  all 
cases  where  the  State,  corporation,  or  individual  has  paid  or  lost  interest,  or  is  liable  to 
pay  it.    (9  Stat.  L.,  p.  236.) 

In  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Claims  of  the  Senate  (Report  No. 
8,  Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session),  reported  January  6,  1886,  the  ques- 
tion of  the  payment  of  interest  by  the  United  States  Government  is  fully 
and  elaborately  discussed,  and  fifty-three  statutes  from  the  Statutes  at 
Large  are  quoted  showing  it  to  have  been  the  practice  of  the  Congress  to 
allow  interest. 

Reference  is  particularly  made  to  that  report  for  the  discussion  of  the 
general  question  of  paying  interest,  and  to  the  following  examples  selected 
from  said  Senate  report  on  payment  of  interest  on  "advances:" 

5.  An  Act  approved  May  3,  1802,  provided  that  there  be  paid  Fulwar  Skipwith  the  sum 
of  $4,550,  advanced  by  him  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  six 
per  cent  per  annum'  from  the  first  of  November,  1795,  at  which  time  the  advance  was 
made.    (6  Stat.  L.,  p.  48.) 

27.  An  Act  approved  May  5,  1824,  directed  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  to 
Amasa  Stetson  the  sum  of  .$6,215,  "being  for  interest  on  moneys  advanced  by  him  for  the 
use  of  the  United  States,  and  on  warrants  issued  in  his  favor  in  the  years  1814  and  1815 
for  his  services  in  the  Ordnance  and  Quartermaster's  Department,  for  superintending  the 
making  of  army  clothing,  and  for  issuing  the  public  supplies."    (6  Stat.  L.,  298.) 

41.  An  Act  approved  February  17, 1836,  directed  the  payment  of  the  sum  therein  named 
to  Marinus  W.  Gilbert,  being  the  interest  on  money  advanced  by  him  to  pay  off  troops  in 
the  service  of  the  United  States,  and  not  repaid  when  demanded.    (6  Stat.  L.,  622.) 

45.  An  Act  approved  July  7,  1838,  provided  that  the  proper  officers  of  the  Treasury  be 
directed  to  settle  the  accounts  of  Richard  Harrison,  formerly  consular  agent  of  the  United 
States  at  Cadiz,  Spain,  and  to  allow  him,  among  other  items,  the  interest  on  the  money 
advanced,  under  agreement  with  the  Minister  of  the  United  States  in  Spain,  for  the  relief 
of  destitute  and  distressed  seamen,  and  for  their  passages  to  the  United  States,  from  the 
time  the  advances  respectively  were  made  to  the  time  at  which  the  said  advances  were 
reimbursed.    (6  Stat.  L.,  734.) 

That  report  further  says  that — 

The  prevalent  idea  that  "the  Government  never  pays  interest"  has  ^rown  up  from  the 
practice  of  the  departments  which  do  not  allow  interest  except  where  it  is  specially  pro- 
vided for  in  cases  of  contracts  or  expressly  authorized  by  law.  But  this  usage  and  custom 
of  the  executive  departments  cannot  be  properly  regarded  as  the  settled  rule  and  policy 
of  the  Government,  for  its  action  upon  the  subject  of  interest  has  not  from  the  earliest 
time  conformed  to  such  usage.  On  the  contrary,  it  will  be  found,  upon  an  examination  of 
the  precedents  where  Congress  has  passed  Acts  for  the  relief  of  private  citizens,  that  in 
almost  every  case,  except  those  growing  out  of  the  late  war,  Congress  has  directed  the 


547 

payment  of  interest  where  the  United  States  had  withheld  a  sum  of  money  which  had 
"been  decided  hy  comT)etent  authority  to  be  due,  or  where  the  amount  due  was  ascertained, 
fixed,  and  certain.  The  highest  Court  of  the  country  has  also  affirmed  this  to  be  not  only 
the  practice  of  the  Government,  but  the  measure  of  its  duty.  Thus,  in  15  Wallace,  p. 
77,  where  the  suit  was  against  a  United  States  Collector  for  the  recover}'-  of  taxes  illegally 
collected,  the  Supreme  Court  used  the  following  language  upon  the  subject  of  interest 
allowed  on  the  claim,  viz. : 

"  The  exception  is  to  the  instruction  that  if  the  jury  found  for  plaintiff  they  might  add 
interest.  This  was  not  contested  upon  the  argument,  and  we  think  it  clearly  correct. 
The  ground  for  the  refusal  to  allow  interest  is  the  presumption  that  the  Government  is  always 
ready  and  willing  to  pay  its  ordinary  debts.  Where  an  illegal  tax  has  been  collected,  the 
citizen  who  has  paid  and  has  been  obliged  to  bring  suit  against  the  Collector,  is  entitled 
to  interest  in  the  event  of  recovery  from  the  time  of  the  alleged  execution." 

The  Senate  report  from  which  the  above  extracts  are  taken  forcibly  states 
that: 

Your  committee  have  directed  attention  to  these  numerous  precedents  for  the  purpose 
of  exposing  the  utter  want  of  foundation  of  the  often  repeated  assumption  that  "  the 
Government  never  pays  interest."  It  will  really  be  admitted  that  there  is  no  statute  law 
to  sustain  this  position.  The  idea  has  grown  up  from  the  custom  and  usage  of  the 
accounting  officers  and  departments  refusing  to  allow  interest  generally  in  their  accounts 
with  disbursing  officers,  and  in  the  settlement  of  unliquidated  domestic  claims  arising  out 
of  dealings  with  the  Government.  It  will  hardly  be  pretended,  however,  that  this  custom 
or  usage  is  so  "  reasonable,"  well  known,  and  "  certain  "  as  to  give  it  the  force  and  effect  of 
law,  and  to  override  and  trample  under  foot  the  law  of  nations,  and  also  the  well  settled 
practice  of  the  Government  itself  in  its  intercourse  with  other  nations. 

A  great  Government  like  ours,  with  unlimited  resources  and  revenues  at  its  command, 
should  above  all  things  deal  justly  with  its  citizens,  and  certainly  with  the  States,  and 
particularly  when  the  States  have  dealt  so  liberally  and  generously  with  the  Government, 
as  Maryland  and  Virginia  did  when  they  advanced  the  money  to  construct  the  public 
buildings  at  Washington. 

Senator  Sumner  (Report  No.  4,  Forty-first  Congress,  first  session,  p.  10) 
remarks  that: 

If  the  claim  is  just,  the  precedent  of  paying  it  is  one  which  our  Government  should 
wish  to  establish.  "  Honesty  and  justice  are  not  precedents  of  which  either  governments 
or  individuals  should  be  afraid. 

Your  committee  therefore  recommend  the  passage  of  the  accompanying 
bill. 

VIEWS   OF   THE   MINORITY. 

The  undersigned,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  cannot  concur  in  the 
report  of  the  majority  on  the  bill  (H.  R.  2504)  to  provide  for  paying  cer- 
tain advances  made  to  the  United  States  by  the  States  of  Maryland  and 
Virginia.  The  proposition  embodied  in  the  bill  seems  to  have  been  before 
Congress  in  one  stage  or  another  for  at  least  thirty  years.  In  the  Forty- 
eighth  Congress,  first  session,  the  bill  was  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee, and  the  views  of  the  minority  thereon  were  as  follows: 

VIEWS   OF   THE  MINORITY   OF   COMMITTEE. 

The  undersigned,  members  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  are  of  opinion  that  the 
States  of  Virginia  and  Maryland  have  no  claim  to  be  reimbursed  by  the  United  States  for 
the  sums  furnished  by  those  States  toward  the  erection  of  the  first  National  public  build- 
iiigs  at  Washington. 

It  is  well  known  that  both  before  and  after  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution 
there  was  a  serious  conflict  of  opinion  as  to  the  proper  location  of  the  National  Capital. 
A  great  number  of  places  were  claimants  for  it,  and  a  great  variety  of  considerations 
entered  into  the  question.  Some  might  be  called  general,  or  between  the  different  sec- 
tions of  the  country,  but  to  a  large  extent  it  was  a  strife  between  particular  localities, 
governed  by  the  ordinary  selfish  reasons  of  benefit  to  their  locality  and  special  advance- 
ment. The  special  advantages  of  such  location  within  a  State,  or  in  immediate  proximity 
to  it,  were  far  greater  at  that  day,  when  the  facilities  for  travel  and  communication  were 
so  slow  and  tedious,  than  they  would  be  now  when  railroad  and  telegraph  lines  have 
nearly  obliterated  time  and  distance.    That  Virginia  and  Maryland  should  have  felt  a 


548 

great  anxiety  to  have  the  National  Capital  located  upon  the  banks  of  the  great  navigable 
river  flowing  between  them  was  very  natural,  and  that  to  secure  such  great  advantages 
they  should  be  willing  to  bear  something  more  than  their  share  of  the  expense,  and  use 
that  as  an  argument  in  favor  of  their  location,  was  also  natural  and  probable. 

In  the  then  impoverished  condition  of  the  country  a  pecuniary  argument  of  this  sort 
would  have  an  influence  on  the  question  of  location  that  at  this  day  can  hardly  be  imag- 
ined. So  long  a  time  has  elapsed,  and  the  records  of  that  time  are  so  meager,  that  the 
purposes  and  motives  of  the  actors  in  these  early  transactions  must  be  determined  very 
much  by  what  seems  reasonable  and  probable. 

The  State  of  Virginia,  in  1789  (and  before  the  Act  of  Congress  of  July,  1790,  fixing  the 
permanent  seat  of  government),  passed  a  resolution  proposing  to  advance  $120,000  to  be 
applied  toward  the  erection  of  public  buildings,  "  in  case  Congress  shall  deem  it  expedient 
to  establish  the  permanent  seat  of  government  of  the  United  States  on  the  banks  of  the 
Potomac,"  and  also  that  "the  Assembly  of  Maryland  should,  on  their  part,  advance  a  sum 
not  less  than  two  fifths  of  the  sum  advanced  by  this  State  for  the  same  purpose." 

After  this  action  by  Virginia  Congress  passed  the  Act  of  July,  1790,  fixing  the  seat  of 
government  on  the  banks  of  the  Potomac. 

The  fourth  section  of  that  Act  authorized  the  President  to  accept  "grants  of  money" 
to  be  used  in  defraying  the  expense  of  purchasing  a  site  and  erecting  public  buildings 
thereon. 

In  our  judgment  there  is  no  room  for  doubt  that  this  provision  was  inserted  in  view  of 
the  action  of  Virginia  and  the  expected  action  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  and  shows,  in 
the  clearest  possible  manner,  that  Congress  understood  the  proposition  to  be  one  of  a  gift 
of  money  by  those  States,  and  not  a  proposition  to  make  a  loan. 

Two  considerations  seem  to  the  undersigned  quite  conclusive  that  the  proposition  was 
intended  as  one  of  gift  and  not  of  loan: 

First— That  the  proposition  to  loan  such  a  sum  of  money,  to  be  repaid,  should  be  offered, 
conditioned  upon  a  certain  location.  Upon  its  very  face  it  appears  that  the  offer  was 
expected  to  influence  the  location,  and  if  it  was  only  an  offer  of  a  loan,  it  seems  trifling. 

Second— II  the  affair  was  only  a  loan  it  seems  singular  that  such  offer  should  be  on  con- 
dition that  Maryland  should  also  make  a  lesser,  but  proportional  loan.  Treated  as  a  grant 
or  gift  these  conditions  are  harmonious  and  reasonable;  but  on  the  theory  of  a  loan  of 
money,  to  be  repaid,  they  seem  trivial.  The  majority  report  assumes  that  the  word  used 
in  the  resolutions  of  both  States,  advance,  imports  a  loan. 

We  deny  this.  That  is  not  either  the  legal  or  ordinary  use  of  the  word.  In  the  case  of 
a  loan  of  money,  to  be  repaid,  the  word  is  never  used.  A  factor  or  consignee  of  goods  for 
sale  advances  a  part  of  the  price  to  the  owner,  for  which  he  holds  a  lien  on  the  goods  to  be 
taken  from  the  proceeds  of  the  sale.  A  man  advances  money  to  the  contractor  who  has 
contracted  to  build  his  house,  to  be  reckoned  as  a  part  of  the  contract  price. 

A  parent  advances  money  to  his  child,  to  be  reckoned  as  a  portion  of  the  child's  share 
in  his  estate  when  divided.  But  on  a  loan  of  money,  which  creates  a  debt,  to  be  repaid, 
we  know  of  no  such  use  of  the  word,  and  we  think  it  does  not  import  a  loan. 

The  word  might  be  used  so  that  in  connection  with  the  surrounding  circumstances  it 
might  establish  a  loan ;  but  its  use  in  this  case,  connected  with  the  circumstances  under 
which  it  was  used,  proves  quite  the  contrary. 

But  whatever  may  be  the  construction  or  legal  meaning  of  the  word  "advance,"  as  used 
by  Virginia  and  Maryland  in  their  resolutions,  there  is  no  doubt  or  dispute  as  to  the  Act 
of  Congress  under  which  the  money  was  paid.  The  President  was  authorized  to  accept 
"grants  of  money."    He  was  not  authorized  to  borrow  money  or  accept  loans  of  money. 

The  majoritv  of  the  committee  argue  that  if  a  party  accepts  money  of  another,  he  accepts 
it  as  offered,  and  that  he  cannot  change  the  character  of  the  transaction  by  saying  he 
accepts  it  for  a  different  purpose  or  upon  other  terms.  This  may  be  true  as  between  indi- 
viduals, but  when  a  party  pays  money  to  a  public  officer  who  has  been  authorized  by  law 
to  receive  it  for  a  particular  purpose,  and  upon  special  terms,  he  must  be  held  to  accept 
those  terms,  because  otherwise  the  officer  has  no  official  authority  to  receive  the  money. 

The  reference  to  the  letter  of  General  Washington,  we  think,  proves  nothing  in  favor  of 
the  proposition  that  this  was  a  loan  to  be  repaid.  The  Government  was  bound  to  use  the 
money  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  given.  The  commissioners  to  expend  the  money 
were  bound  to  keep  an  account  of  all  moneys  received  and  expended  by  them  from  what- 
ever source  the  money  came. 

When  General  Washington's  letter  was  written,  in  1793,  it  appeared  that  the  money 
received  from  Virginia  and  Maryland  had  not  all  been  expended  on  the  objects  for  which 
it  was  appropriated.  It  was  this  state  of  things  to  which  General  Washington  was 
referring,  and  not  at  all  to  any  obligation  to  repay  a  loan.  If  it  was  a  loan,  and  to  be 
repaid  at  all  events,  it  was  not  of  much  consequence  what  were  the  details  of  the  expendi- 
tures. 

The  report  of  Mr.  Meigs,  referred  to  in  the  majority  report,  speaks  of  these  moneys  as 
"  the  donations  of  Virginia  and  Maryland."  Nothing  appears  in  all  the  early  history  of  this 
matter,  in  our  judgment,  to  show  that  anybody  then  thought  of  any  repayment  of  this 
money,  or  that  it  was  anything  but  a  donation  or  gift. 

The  benefits  derived  by  the  Government  from  the  arrangement  with  the  land  owners, 
by  which  the  lots  of  the  new  city  were  divided  between  them,  does  not  seem  to  have  any- 
thing to  do  with  the  question.    This  was  a  contract  with  private  parties,  and  not  with 
Virginia  or  Maryland. 
The  undersigned,  notwithstanding  the  staleness  of  this  claim,  would  not  suggest  that  as 


549 

any  bar  to  its  allowance,  if  they  could  feel  there  was  ever  a  just  claim.  It  was  fifty  years 
before  Maryland  set  up  any  claim  to  have  this  money  repaid,  and  nearly  sixty  years 
before  Virginia  waked  up  to  her  rights  in  this  respect.  It  is  said  that  during  this  time  the 
National  Government  was  poor,  and  these  States  acted  the  ordinary  part  of  a  rich  and 
lenient  creditor  to  a  poor  debtor.  But  years  before  either  State  made  any  claim  to  have 
this  money  repaid,  the  Treasury  of  the  "United  States  had  become  so  plethoric  that  they 
had  to  resort  to  the  doubtful  relief  of  distributing  its  surplus  to  the  States.  We  think  it 
may  at  least  be  suggested  that  the  long  delay  to  assert  this  claim  by  these  States  arose 
from  a  consciousness  that  no  such  claim  existed.  A  word  as  to  the  action  of  a  former 
Senate,  and  the  debate  on  this  claim  by  former  eminent  Senators,  will  conclude  all  we 
desire  to  say. 

Each  of  the  Senators  who  participated  in  that  debate  stated  that,  in  his  judgment,  it 
made  no  difference  whether  this  money,  advanced  by  these  States,  was  as  a  gift  or  a  loan, 
that  in  either  view  it  ought  to  be  repaid.  We  do  not  agree  at  all  with  those  eminent  Sen- 
ators. If  the  Government  borrowed  this  money,  and  has  not  paid  it,  it  ought  to  do  so; 
hut  if  the  money  was  given  by  these  States  to  the  United  States,  and  especially  if  it  was 
given  in  view  of  securing  greater  benefits  to  themselves  thereby,  as  we  think  it  was,  then 
there  is  no  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  return  the  money,  and  there  is 
no  more  justice  in  returning  it,  or  constitutional  power  to  return  it,  than  to  make  a  gift 
to  any  other  State  or  person. 

The  books  of  the  Treasury  Department  do  not  show  that  this  claim  was  ever  recognized 
as  an  obligation  of  the  Government,  in  any  form  or  in  any  sense.  But  it  does  appear  that 
within  a  few  years  after  the  National  Capital  was  located  at  Washington  the  United  States 
borrowed  several  hundred  thousand  dollars  from  the  State  of  Maryland,  which  was  to  be 
paid  in  four  annual  installments,  and  that  the  same  was  paid  in  installments  as  agreed. 

If  this  claim  now  made  by  Maryland  was  then  understood  to  have  been  a  loan,  it  is 
very  singular  that  it  should  not  have  been  presented  and  adjusted.  This  fact  furnishes 
another  quite  conclusive  reason  to  our  minds  that  this  money  was  understood  to  be  a 
donation,  and  not  a  loan. 

LUKE  P.  POLAND. 

S   W.  MOULTON. 

M.  A.  McCOID. 

THOMAS  M.  BROWNE. 

E.  B.  TAYLOR. 

T.  B.  REED. 

H.  BISBEE,  Jr. 

While  admitting  that  the  word  advance  sometimes  imports  a  loan,  yet 
because  of  the  remaining  reasons  set  forth  in  the  "  views  "  above  recited, 
the  undersigned  cannot  concur  with  the  majority.  As  to  the  allowance 
for  interest,  it  may  be  observed  that  there  was  no  evidence  produced 
showing  that  the  State  of  Virginia  ever  paid  any  interest  upon  the  specific 
sum.  Maryland  seems  to  have  disposed  of  some  of  her  public  domain  to 
raise  her  amount.  Another  consideration  ought  not  to  be  lost  sight  of. 
The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  now  the  holder  of  a  large  number 
of  bonds  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  upon  which  remains  unpaid  large  arrears 
of  interest.  There  is  also  charged  against  the  State  of  Virginia  upon  the 
books  of  the  Treasury  Department  for  unpaid  taxes,  under  the  Direct  Tax 
Act  of  1861,  the  sum  of  $213,501  30.  Not  only  is  no  provision  made  in 
the  bill  for  the  offsetting  of  either  of  these  items,  but  the  bill  expressly 
authorizes  and  directs  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  to  the  Treas- 
urers of  the  States  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  the  amounts  found  to  be  due 
them,  respectively,  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act. 

JAMES  BUCHANAN. 
WM.  WARNER. 


Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.    House  of  Representatives.    Report  No.  519. 

CLAIM  OF  CERTAIN  STATES  AND  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE. 

February  13,  1886 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House 
on  the  state  of  the  Union  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 


550 
Mr.  Trigg,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 
[To  accompany  Bill  H.  R.  2948,  with  amendment.] 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R.  2948) 
directing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  examine  and  settle  the  accounts 
of  certain  States  and  the  City  of  Baltimore,  growing  out  of  moneys  expended 
by  said  States  and  the  City  of  Baltimore  for  military  purposes  during  the 
war  of  1812,  have  had  the  same  under  consideration,  and  ask  leave  to  sub- 
mit the  following  report: 

During  the  war  of  1812-14  with  Great  Britain,  the  States  of  Massa- 
chusetts, New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  South 
Carolina,  and  the  City  of  Baltimore,  expended  certain  moneys  for  military 
purposes.  After  many  years  the  United  States,  acknowledging  the  debt  to 
be  just  and  payable  with  interest,  refunded  the  money  with  interest;  but 
the  rule  of  casting  interest  that  was  applied  was  to  compute  interest  on  the 
sum  advanced  by  the  State  from  the  date  of  advancement  up  to  the  time 
of  refunding  to  the  State  by  the  United  States  any  portion  of  the  sum 
advanced,  deduct  the  sum  refunded  from  the  advancement,  and  then  com- 
pute interest  on  the  balance ;  and  so  on  until  the  final  payment  of  the  prin- 
cipal. The  aggregate  of  the  interest  column  so  computed  was  the  amount 
of  interest  paid  (see  Second  Auditor's  Report  of  October  30,  1858).  In 
other  words,  the  payments  were  applied  first  to  the  payment  of  the  princi- 
pal, and  after  the  principal  was  wholly  extinguished,  then  to  the  several 
items  in  the  column  of  interest. 

Against  this  mode  of  computing  interest  the  States  formally  protested 
(S.  Doc,  second  session  Twenty-second  Congress,  1832-33).  It  was  a  plain 
neglect  and  refusal  of  the  United  States  to  refund  the  whole  amount  bor- 
rowed. To  illustrate:  Suppose,  in  the  emergency  of  war,  Virginia,  one  of 
the  States,  should  borrow  a  million  of  dollars  at  six  per  cent,  and  advance 
the  amount  to  the  United  States.  Sixteen  years  afterward,  when  the  inter- 
est would  about  equal  the  principal,  the  United  States  should  refund  a 
million,  but  insist  that  it  shall  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  principal. 
Sixteen  years  afterward  another  million  is  refunded,  and  it  is  applied  to 
the  payment  of  the  item  of  interest;  the  interest  not  bearing  interest,  the 
whole  debt,  principal  and  interest,  would  be  paid,  according  to  this  mode 
of  adjustment.  Meanwhile  Virginia  has  paid  her  creditors  one  million  of 
interest  during  the  first  sixteen  years,  another  million  during  the  second 
period  of  sixteen  years,  and  still  owes  the  million  of  principal.  Virginia, 
in  the  case  supposed,  paid  out  a  million  dollars  more  than  the  United 
States  refunded.  If  one  borrowed  a  thousand  at  six  per  cent  to  lend  a 
friend  in  distress,  and  after  sixteen  years  the  friend  should  repay  a  thou- 
sand dollars,  but  compel  the  lender  to  accept  it  in  full  of  the  principal,  and 
sixteen  years  afterward  should  pay  another  thousand  dollars  in  full  of  the 
interest,  leaving  his  friend  still  in  debt  for  the  principal,  what  Court  would 
sanction  such  a  settlement,  and  what  justice  would  there  be  in  it?  Yet 
such  is  the  treatment  received  by  the  States  that  made  advances  to  the 
United  States  in  the  war  of  1812-14.  It  is  evident  that  the  United  States 
have  not  refunded  in  full  the  advances  made  by  the  States  embraced  in 
this  bill. 

It  was  not  until  the  Act  of  March  3,  1857,  that  partial  redress  was 
obtained.     By  that  Act  a  reexamination  and  readjustment  of  the  account 


551 

of  the  State  of  Maryland  was  directed  to  be  made,  and  it  was  provided 
that  in  the  calculation  of  interest  the  following  rules  should  be  observed: 

Interest  shall  be  calculated  up  to  the  time  of  any  payment  made.  To  this  interest  the 
payment  shall  be  first  applied,  and,  if  it  exceeds  the  interest  due,  the  balance  shall  be 
applied  to  diminish  the  principal ;  if  the  payment  fall  short  of  the  interest,  the  balance  of 
interest  shall  not  be  added  to  the  principal  so  as  to  produce  interest.  Second,  interest 
shall  be  allowed  on  such  sums  only  on  which  the  State  either  paid  interest  or  lost  interest 
by  the  transfer  of  an  interest-bearing  fund. 

Under  this  Act  Maryland  received  the  additional  sum  of  $275,770  23, 
and  on  the  eighth  of  July,  1870,  an  Act  was  passed  directing  the  accounts 
between  the  United  States,  and  Massachusetts  and  Maine,  to  be  reopened 
and  readjusted,  and  Massachusetts  received  the  sum  of  $678,362  42,  of 
which  one  third  was  allotted  to  the  State  of  Maine  as  an  integral  part  of 
Massachusetts  when  the  advances  were  made. 

Previously  to  this  period,  however,  the  account  between  the  United  States 
and  the  State  of  Alabama  had  been  settled  on  the  basis  of  the  Maryland 
settlement.  Indeed  the  bill  now  under  consideration  passed  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States  by  a  vote  of  thirty -three  yeas  to  nineteen  nays,  on  the 

day  of ,  1857.     It  went  to  the  House  of  Representatives, 

which  substituted  for  this  bill  the  following,  which  was  subsequently  con- 
curred in  by  the  Senate,  and  stands  as  the  ninth  section  of  the  Act  of  that 
session: 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  instructed  to  report  to 
Congress  at  its  next  regular  session,  all  applications  made  by  State  authority  of  the  States 
and  cities  for  the  reopening  and  reexamination  of  the  settlements  heretofore  made  with 
such  States  and  cities,  and  upon  the  principle  of  readjustment  upon  which  such  claims 
are  based,  and  the  amount  thereof;  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  further  instructed 
to  report  to  Congress,  at  its  next  regular  session,  the  gross  amount  that  will  be  required 
to  pay  such  claims  to  the  States  and  cities  of  .the  United  States.  (11  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  326, 
an  Act  making  appropriations  for  civil  service,  approved  June  12, 1858.) 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  made  his  report  at  the  next  session  of 
Congress,  showing  an  aggregate,  computing  interest  down  to  the  date  of  his 
report,  of  $1,588,521  69,  as  follows: 

South  Carolina. $201,230  90 

Virginia 1,076,683  35 

Delaware 18,540  97 

New  York 48,896  21 

Pennsylvania 218,507  71 

City  of  Baltimore 23,662  55 

Total $1,588,521  69 

(See  Ex.  Docs.,  second  session  Thirty-fifth  Congress,  vol.  5.) 

But,  according  to  the  same  report,  the  following  amounts  only  are  due  in 
principal  to  the  several  States: 

South  Carolina... $78,996  41 

Virginia 734,069  60 

Delaware 6,341  99 

New  York 27,361  81 

Pennsylvania 71,411  19 

City  of  Baltimore... 8,027  55 

The  principal  amount  due  Virginia  in  the  above  report  is  evidently  a 
mistake  against  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  The  amount 
claimed  by  the  State  as  approximately  correct,  is  $339,212. 

These  are  the  States  embraced  in  this  bill.     None  others  have  unsettled 


552 

accounts  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  growing  out  of  moneys 
expended  during  the  war  of  1812. 

This  bill  proposes  to  apply  to  the  above  States  that  made  similar  advances 
the  same  rule  of  computing  interest  which  was  applied  in  the  case  of  Mary- 
land— a  rule  which  has  been  long  and  firmly  established  by  the  decisions 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  by  the  practice  of  every  State 
in  the  Union,  and  adopted  for  many  years  past  by  the  accounting  officers 
of  the  Treasury. 

The  bill  gives  simple  (not  compound)  interest  on  any  balance  of  princi- 
pal that  may  be  found  unpaid,  upon  the  proposed  basis  of  settlement,  until 
its  payment  by  the  United  States.  It  provides  for  any  and  all  proper  off- 
sets which  the  United  States  may  have  against  any  of  the  States  hereby 
entitled. 

In  this  particular  your  committee  deem  it  proper  to  recommend  and 
report  an  amendment  to  the  bill  referred  to  them,  providing  for  the  deduc- 
tion of  any  balance  due  from  any  of  said  States  on  account  of  the  direct 
tax  apportioned  by  the  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  unless  some  general  Act  is 
passed  otherwise  disposing  of  the  matter,  and  also  providing  that  any  unma- 
tured bonds  of  any  of  said  States  held  by  the  United  States  shall,  with  the 
interest  due  and  unpaid  to  July  8,  1870,  be  credited  and  deducted  in  said 
settlement  as  of  that  date.  The  Government  holds  the  bonds  of  the  State 
of  Virginia  issued  in  1860  to  the  amount  of  $581,800,  which  will  not  mature 
until  the  year  1894,  and  also  holds  similar  bonds  of  the  State  of  South 
Carolina. 

This  date  (July  8,  1870)  was  adopted  by  your  committee  because  it 
seemed  to  them  equitable  and  just. 

On  the  first  day  of  January,  1859,  as  shown  by  the  report  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  hereinbefore  referred  to,  there  was  due  the  State  of  Virginia 
over  $1,000,000,  of  which  more  than  two  thirds  was  interest.  She  had 
been  demanding  a  settlement  and  payment  for  years.  Not  being  able  to 
obtain  what  she  asked,  it  is  claimed  that  in  her  extremity  she  borrowed 
from  the  Government  the  amount  represented  by  the  aforesaid  bonds.  To 
require  these  bonds  not  yet  due  to  be  now  paid  with  the  interest  due  thereon, 
seems  unjust,  as  it  would  in  effect  allow  the  Government  in  1860,  with  a 
fund  that  should  have  paid  a  portion  of  the  interest  she  then  owed,  to  cre- 
ate an  interest-bearing  fund  which  would,  if  she  should  arbitrarily  delay 
the  settlement  long  enough,  absorb  the  larger  debt  she  justly  owed  the  State. 
It  was  insisted  that  the  bonds  should  be  applied  as  a  payment,  or  set-off,  as 
of  their  date  in  1860,  but  your  committee,  as  before  stated,  adopted  July  8, 
1870,  because  that  seemed  to  them  equitable  and  just,  and  because  at  that 
time  a  similar  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts  was  passed, 
and  there  seems  no  valid  reason  why  the  settlement  should  not  then  have 
been  made  with  the  other  States. 

In  conclusion,  the  committee  recommend  a  settlement  of  the  accounts  of 
the  United  States  with  the  other  States  by  the  same  rule  of  computing 
interest  that  was  applied  in  the  case  of  Maryland.  It  makes  this  recom- 
mendation because  the  rule  itself  is  just  and  equitable;  because,  otherwise, 
the  money  advanced  will  not  be  fully  repaid;  because  the  rule  has  been 
applied  to  some  of  the  States,  and  if  applied  to  one  Should  be  applied  to  all; 
and  because  the  rule  has  been  repeatedly  approved  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  and  sanctioned  by  the  practice  of  every  State  in  the 
Union,  and  for  many  years  past  followed  in  similar  cases  by  the  accounting 
officers  of  the  Treasury. 

Therefore,  the  committee  report  the  accompanying  bill  with  the  follow- 


553 

ing  amendment:  At  the  end  of  said  bill,  in  the  twenty-fourth  line,  after  the 
word  "required,"  add  the  following,  viz.: 

Also  making  a  deduction  as  of  the  eighth  day  of  Jtdy,  1870,  of  the  amount 
of  principal  and.  interest  due  at  that  date  upon  any  bonds  of  the  said  States, 
matured  or  unmatured,  held  by  the  United  States,  surrendering  said  bonds  so 
far  as  they  are  included  in  said  settlement;  provided,  also,  that  the  balance 
remaining  due  of  the  direct  tax  apportioned  to  the  State  of  Virginia  by  the 
Direct  Tax  Act  of  August  5, 1861,  be  held  and  treated  as  a  proper  set-off  against 
the  claims  of  the  State  of  Virginia  in  the  adjustment  herein  required,  unless 
Congress  shall  otherwise  provide  by  general  law,  releasing  all  claims  for  said 
direct  tax  or  refunding  all  payments  of  such  tax  heretofore  paid. 

And  respectfully  recommend  its  passage,  and  ask  leave  to  submit  as  a 
part  of  this  report,  the  following  extracts  from  debate  in  the  United  States 
Senate  on  this  subject  (see  Congressional  Globe,  volume  36,  part  3,  page 
2540,  first  session  Twenty-fifth  Congress) : 

In  Senate,  May  31,  1858. 

Mr.  Iverson.  No,  sir;  no  more  than  was  the  case  of  the  State  of  Maryland.  The  Act 
in  relation  to  Maryland  directs  that  "  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  be 
and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  reexamine  the  accounts  between  the 
United  States  and  the  State  of  Maryland,  as  the  same  was  from  time  to  time  adjusted 
under  the  Act,"  etc. 

That  proposed  a  reexamination  of  an  account  which  had  been  adjusted,  did  it  not  ?  Pre- 
cisely. Whether  the  account  had  been  closed  or  not,  whether  it  had  been  adjusted  or  not, 
whether  it  was  still  in  existence  or  not,  this  Act  directed  the  accounting  officers  to  reex- 
amine the  account  for  interest,  and  make  the  computation  on  a  particular  basis.  It  was 
done  in  the  case  of  Alabama.  I  desire  to  apply  the  same  rule  to  all  the  States.  It  is  just, 
equitable,  and  proper,  if  you  apply  it  to  two  States,  that  you  should  give  it  to  all.  I  do 
not  know  that  my  State  is  interested  to  any  great  extent.  The  State  of  South  Carolina  is 
interested,  and  her  account  has  not  been  settled.  The  Controller  of  that  State,  in  his 
report  to  the  Governor,  made  a  few  years  ago,  states  the  difficulties  between  the  account- 
ing officers  of  the  United  States  and  himself.  That  account  is  still  lying  open.  The  State 
of  South  Carolina  protested  against  the  settlement  by  its  officers  at  that  time.  This 
amendment  will  meet  that  case,  and  authorize  the  accounting  officers  to  readjust  the 
accounts  of  South  Carolina  on  the  basis  applied  to  the  State  of  Maryland.  This  amend- 
ment simply  directs  that  the  provisions  and  principles  applied  under  the  twelfth  section  of 
the  Act  of  1857,  to  Maryland,  shall  be  applied  to  all  the  States.  It  does  not  reopen 
accounts. 

Mr.  Benjamin.  Will  the  Senator  from  Georgia  give  us  some  information  on  one  or  two 
points  suggested  by  his  amendment?  First— In  what  way  this  matter  comes  before  the 
committee  of  which  he  is  the  organ?  Is  there  a  claim  from  the  States?  Has  it  been 
referred  to  the  committee  on  behalf  of  the  States  ? 

Mr.  Iverson.  Yes,  sir;  a  memorial  from  the  State  of  South  Carolina  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Claims,  and  it  was  upon  that  memorial  that  the  committee  have  predicated 
their  amendment. 

Mr.  Benjamin.    A  general  section. 

Mr.  Iverson.  Yes,  a  general  section,  believing  that  it  was  equitable  to  apply  the  rule  to 
all  the  States. 

Mr.  Benjamin.  The  next  question  I  would  desire  to  ask  the  Senator  is :  If  he  has  any 
idea  what  the  amount  involved  in  this  appropriation  will  be? 

Mr.  Iverson.  I  have  no  idea.  The  Comptroller  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  alleges 
in  his  report  to  the  Governor  of  that  State,  which  I  have  in  my  hand,  that  in  the  settle- 
ment between  him  and  the  accounting  officers  of  the  United  States,  the  State  of  South 
Carolina  lost  $55,000  in  interest.  That  is  the  difference  between  the  mode  of  computation 
of  the  accounting  officers  and  the  mode  of  accounting  as  regulated  by  the  Act  in  relation 
to  Maryland.  I  do  not  know  how  other  States  may  be  affected.  I  do  not  suppose  the 
amounts  are  very  large.  I  expect  that  the  amount  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  is 
larger  than  that  of  any  other  State. 

Mr.  Benjamin.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  this  section  is  liable  to  the  objection  made 
by  the  Senator  from  Virginia.  This  is  not  to  pay  a  private  claim  of  the  State  of  South 
Carolina.  It  is  a  general  rule  bj^  which  the  Treasury  is  to  be  guided  in  its  settlements 
with  the  States;  and  we  have  already  sanctioned  the  payments  to  some  of  the  States  on 
this  basis ;  this  section  provides  that  even  in  cases  which  have  already  been  closed  by  the 
Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  not  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  State,  as  the  Senator  from  Vir- 
ginia suggests,  but  to  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  State,  the  account  shall  be  reopened  and 
examined,  and  settled  according  to  principles  which  we  have  declared  to  be  just.  The 
idea  of  applying  a  payment  made  at  any  time  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to 
the  extinction  of  a  part  of  the  capital  of  the  debt  due  to  a  State  whilst  there  remains 


554 

interest  unsatisfied,  is  contrary  to  all  principle,  to  every  rule  by  which  computation  of 
payments  is  made.  The  State  of  South  Carolina  having  presented  this  memorial,  if  the 
proposition  of  the  Senator  from  Georgia,  now,  was  to  pay  that  claim,  1  admit  it  would  be 
a  private  claim;  but  the  committee,  instead  of  treating  this  as  a  private  claim,  preferred 
to  report  a  section  which  amounts  to  a  general  law,  for  the  verj'-  reason  that  they  are  not 
willing  to  act  upon  the  claim  of  one  State  as  a  private  claim.  My  State  has  no  interest  in 
this  question;  but  I  do  think  that  justice  requires  that  the  adjustment  of  these  accounts 
with  the  States  should  be  made  all  upon  the  same  footing;  and,  as  it  has  already  been 
made  on  this  footing  with  the  States  of  Alabama  and  Maryland,  I  cannot  conceive  why 
South  Carolina  should  be  made  an  exception,  or  any  other  State  which  has  had  accounts 
to  adjust  with  the  General  Government.  It  is  a  general  rule  now  provided  by  Congress 
for  the  settlement  of  accounts  with  States,  and  the  mode  of  adjusting  the  interests  that 
arise  in  accounts  with  States.  It  is  not  an  appropriation  for  the  benefit  of  the  State  of 
South  Carolina.  The  committee,  it  appears  to  me,  have  carefully  avoided  reporting  a  pri- 
vate claim,  and  have  ex  industria  changed  the  legislation  into  a  general  law.  I  do  not  see 
that  it  comes  under  the  rule  of  the  Senate  which  has  been  cited,  and  I  shall  vote  for  the 
amendment. 

The  Presiding  Officer.  Inasmuch  as  authority  is  given  by  the  rules  to  take  the  opinion 
of  the  Senate  on  questions  of  this  sort,  and  inasmuch  as  the  facts  in  this  case  are  dis- 
puted, the  Chair  will  submit  the  question  of  order  to  the  people. 

Mr.  Hamlin.  I  think  the  matter  has  been  so  clearly  and  so  well  stated  by  the  Senator 
from  Louisiana  that  really  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  it.  Certainly  there  is  none  in  my 
mind;  and  I  have  only  risen  for  the  purpose  of  inviting  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  its 
action  on  other  cases  which  I  think  are  very  similar,  if  not  entirely  parallel  to  this.  We 
pass  pension  laws  in  which  we  prescribe  the  time  of  service;  we  prescribe  the  rules  which 
shall  entitle  the  person  to  a  pension.  We  find,  outside  of  that  class  of  pensions,  a  very 
large  class  of  cases  that  come  very  nearly  up  to  the  rules  we  have  prescribed;  they  come 
here,  and  what  is  done  ?  Our  Committee  on  Pensions  recommend  this  special  case,  and 
that  special  case,  and  they  are  passed.  By  and  by  we  see  there  are  so  many  special  cases 
that  we  remove  the  limitation  by  general  law,  and  it  has  been  done  in  appropriation  bills^ 
precisely  in  the  way  now  proposed. 

I  will  cite  an  instance.  We  removed  the  limitations  as  to  the  time  or  mode  of  proof 
required  at  the  Department,  and  that  takes  in  a  whole  class  of  cases.  True,  if  each  one 
came  here  and  asked  action  separately  by  itself,  it  would  be  a  private  claim;  but  you 
make  a  general  law  to  include  all  cases.    That  is  precisely  this  case. 

I  refer,  now,  to  an  instance  in  my  mind,  with  regard  to  those  who  drew  pensions  for 
revolutionary  service.  You  prescribed,  originally,  that  only  those  widows  of  revolu- 
tionary soldiers  should  draw  a  pension  who  were  married  previous  to  1783, 1  think.  Then 
you  limited  it  to  1794;  and  then  you  limited  it  to  1800,  because  you  found  such  a  large 
number  of  cases  coming  so  nearly  up  to  the  time,  that  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  extend 
it.  The  last  amendment,  I  recollect  distinctly,  because  I  drew  it,  was  ingrafted  on  an 
appropriation  bill  in  1853,  and  it  was  to  meet  a  class  of  special  cases  here  pending. 

Mr.  Green.  I  will  inquire  when  the  rule  is  to  apply  under  the  resolution  adopted  this 
morning,  for  a  recess,  to-day  or  to-morrow  ? 

The  Presiding  Officer.    To-morrow. 

Mr.  Green.    Then  I  move  that  the  Senate  do  now  adjourn. 

Mr.  Hunter.    I  hope  that  we  shall  get  through  with  this  bill. 

Mr.  Green.  We  cannot  get  through,  because  I  have  an  amendment  to  offer,  and  so 
have  others. 

Mr.  Hunter.    Let  us  hear  them. 

The  motion  to  adjourn  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  Presiding  Officer.  Will  the  Senate  receive  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  Senator 
from  Georgia  ? 

The  amendment  was  received. 

The  Presiding  Officer,    The  question  now  is  on  agreeing  to  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Hunter.  The  amendment  is  a  proposition  which  certainly  ought  to  receive  some 
examination  before  it  is  passed.  We  ought  to  know  how  much  money  it  will  take  from 
the  Treasury ;  we  ought  to  know  what  changes  it  is  to  make  in  the  principles  on  which 
accounts  have  been  settled  with  States.  I  apprehend  it  will  be  found  that  it  makes  other 
changes  besides  the  one  which  has  been  referred  to  by  the  Senator  from  Louisiana,  the 
mode  of  stating  the  account  as  to  interest  and  principal.  I  believe  there  have  been  some 
rules  as  to  whether  interest  shall  be  allowed  to  States  at  all,  and  upon  which  settlements 
have  been  made  with  most  of  the  States,  and  that  will  be  changed  if  this  provision  be 
adopted;  and  it  is  probable  that  under  the  change  it  will  be  found  that  very  large  sums 
will  be  due  to  the  States  of  this  Union.  I  have  no  doubt  that  most  of  the  old  States 
would  come  in  if  this  amendment  be  adopted,  and  some  of  them  might  claim  very  largelj^ 
This  is  eminently  a  subject  for  separate  legislation.  We  ought  to  know  what  changes  are 
made.  We  ought  to  know  whether  under  this  amendment  we  shall  not  pay  to  some 
States  interest  on  claims  on  which  interest  has  never  been  voted. 

The  first  deviation,  if  I  remember,  was  in  the  case  of  Alabama;  but  there  it  was  deter- 
mined to  make  certain  allowances  of  interest,  because  the  State  had  paid  the  interest, 
because  it  had  sold  stocks,  as  was  done  in  Maine;  and  an  exception  was  made  in  the  case 
of  Alabama  for  that  reason.  I  believe  that  was  the  case  also  in  Maryland,  where  the 
allowance  was  on  the  principle  of  the  Alabama  case.  Unless  you  treat  this  as  having 
arisen  out  of  those  exceptional  circumstances,  you  will  reopen  all  the  settlements  that 


555 

have  been  made  with  the  States;  and  you  will  pass  out  of  the  Treasury  a  large  sum  of 
money,  in  my  opinion.  I  speak,  though,  only  from  general  recollection;  I  have  had  no 
time  to  examine  the  amendment  particularly ;  but  I  am  afraid  it  will  be  found  when  we 
come  to  see  the  effect  of  it— if  it  should  be  adopted— that  it  will  go  much  further  than 
any  of  us  suppose. 

Mr.  Fessend^en.  The  Senator  from  Virginia,  if  he  would  take  the  pains  to  read  the 
amendment,  would  see  that  is  not  open  to  the  objections  he  has  stated.  It  does  not  pro- 
vide, if  I  read  it  rightly,  for  the  payment  of  any  interest  to  a  State,  in  any  case  whatever, 
where  interest  has  not  been  allowed  heretofore.  It  does  not  make  any  new  claim  in  that 
respect.  The  whole  amount  of  it  is  simply  this :  The  Treasury,  as  I  understand,  has 
adopted  the  rule  that  where  a  certain  amount  of  debt  is  owing  to  a  State,  and  a  certain 
amount  of  interest  has  accumulated  on  that  debt,  and  where  the  principal  thus  owing 
bears  interest,  and  the  interest  thus  owing  does  not,  if  the  claim  is  paid  in  part,  they 
apply  that  part  payment  to  the  principal  which  bears  interest,  instead  of  to  the  interest 
which  does  not,  thus  reversing  the  rule  which  exists  in  every  State  in  the  Union  and 
operating  most  unjustly  towards  the  States  themselves.  For  instance,  suppose  a  debt  is 
due  to  a  State,  which  debt  bears  interest,  and  by  the  law  at  the  same  time  there  is  an 
amount  of  interest  accumulated  upon  it  which  does  not  bear  interest — let  us  call  one 
$50,000  and  the  other  $30,000,  the  $50,000  bearing  interest  and  the  $30,000  not  bearing  inter- 
est. The  Government,  in  these  circumstances,  instead  of  j)aying  the  whole,  pay  up 
$30,000.  Then,  instead  of  applying  it  to  the  amount  which  does' not  bear  interest  against 
the  Government,  and  which  the  State  has  paid,  they  apply  it  to  the  principal,  reducing 
the  claim  which  bears  interest  to  $20,000,  and  leaving  the  State  to  lose  its  interest  on 
$30,000. 

Mr.  Toombs.    It  is  worse  than  that. 

Mr.  Fessenden.  That  is  bad  enough.  The  provision  is,  in  regard  to  all  these  claims 
which  the  States  have  where  the  United  States  will  not  pay  accumulating  interest,  as  they 
ought  to  do,  that  the  partial  paj'-ment  shall  first  go  to  sink  the  interest  that  is  due.  If  a 
man  owes  me  money,  and  interest  has  been  accumulating  year  after  year  which  he  has 
failed  to  pay,  and  esx)ecially  if  I  am  in  debt  for  it,  as  is  very  often  the  case  with  the  States, 
he  ought  to  indemnify  me;  but  the  rule  adopted  by  the  Treasury  is  worse  than  that. 
They  say  they  will  not  only  not  indemnify  me  and  leave  me  to  pay  my  interest,  but  when 
they  do  make  a  payment  it  shall  not  go  to  sink  the  interest,  but  to  sink  the  principal, 
leaving  the  interest  to  stand.  That  is  unjust.  It  does  not  apply  in  the  case  of  any  pri- 
vate claim  anywhere,  but  has  been  arbitrarily  adopted  by  the  accounting  officers  of  the 
Treasury.  In  the  case  of  Maryland,  which  was  precisely  similar,  Maryland  remonstrated, 
and  at  the  last  session  Congress  said  that  account  should  be  adjusted  upon  proper 
principles— the  same  principles  that  exist  in  every  State  of  the  Union  between  man  and 
man — that  where  principal  and  interest  are  due  and  the  Government  paid  any  part,  that 
payment  should  be  applied  to  the  interest  first;  if  it  paid  it  off,  very  well;  if  it  overbal- 
anced it,  the  balance  should  be  so  much  towards  the  principal.  This  was  on  the  common, 
ordinary  principles  of  justice. 

In  the  case  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  if  I  understand  it,  the  officers  went  so  far 
as  to  keep  an  account  with  the  State,  crediting  her  with  interest  accumulating  on  the 
principal,  and  if  there  was  any  left  they  then  took  the  part  they  had  paid,  cast  inter- 
est on  that,  and  then  offset  the  two !  That  is  to  say,  they  paid  their  interest  in  part  and 
retained  to  themselves  the  right  of  offsetting  the  interest  which  accrued  on  their  own 
j)ayment  of  money  due  to  the  State  to  pay  the  rest  of  the  debt  with.     [Laughter.] 

It  does  not  do  to  make  it  a  matter  of  account  current  between  the  two,  because  the 
account  is  really  all  on  one  side;  but  the  Treasury  officers  apply  the  principle  of  accounts 
current  to  it  as  if  so  much  was  due  from  Maryland  and  so  much  from  the  United  States, 
and  cast  interest  on  both  and  then  offset  the  two ;  but  instead  of  that,  it  is  all  due  from 
the  United  States.  They  say,  "  we  will  owe  you  the  interest;  we  will  pay  you  part  of  the 
principal ;  we  will  cast  interest  on  the  money  we  allow  you  and  pay  you  interest  with  it." 
That  is  the  principle  they  have  adopted.  This  is  simply  to  set  that  right  and  to  say  that 
where  these  things  exist  the  Government  shall  do  what  is  proper.  *  *  *  Why,  sir,  what 
difference  will  it  make  how  much  money  it  amounts  to?  If  there  be  more  or  less,  the 
Government  ought  to  pay  and  pay  it  at  once,  without  the  slightest  hesitation,  and  calculate 
the  interest  upon  proper  principles. 

The  Maryland  provision  came  from  the  Senator's  own  Committee  on  Finance,  and  was 
agreed  to  by  the  Senate.    If  it  was  proper  in  that  case,  why  is  it  not  in  every  other  ? 

Mr.  Hunter.  I  have  stated  that  was  made  under  peculiar  circumstances;  that  I  do  not 
recollect  perfectly.  The  Senator  from  Maryland  can  explain  them.  It  will  be  found,  I 
think,  that  they  do  not  apply  to  other  cases. 

Mr.  Pearce.  I  will  state  the  facts  in  relation  to  the  claim  of  Maryland.  The  State  of 
Maryland  advanced  large  sums  of  money  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  during 
the  war  of  1812,  and  some  time  after  the  close  of  that  war  the  United  States  reimbursed 
the  principal.  In  1812  an  Act  was  passed  for  the  payment  of  interest  to  the  State  of 
Maryland,  and  the  interest  was  paid  upon  a  mode  of  calculation  novel  to  me,  though  I 
find  it  has  been  adopted  as  the  usual  rule  of  computation  in  such  cases  at  the  Treasury. 
That  is  to  say,  having  determined  to  settle  the  accounts,  and  commenced  to  make  pay- 
ments on  it,  the  first  payment  was  applied  to  the  reduction  of  the  principal,  the  interest 
being  made  to  stand  aside;  and  so  payments  were  made  from  time  to  time  until  the 
whole  of  the  principal  was  liquidated;  and  then  they  went  back  to  the  period  when  they 
began  to  pay  and  ascertained  what  the  amount  of  interest  due  at  the  time  was,  and  paid 


556 

that  sum  without  any  interest  on  it.  In  1829  or  1830  an  Act  was  passed  through  both 
Houses  of  Congress  authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  to  the  State  of  Maryland  upon 
the  proper  principle,  such  as  prevailed  in  mercantile  transactions,  and  it  was  vetoed  by 
General  Jackson,  and  the  veto  came  in  at  the  next  session  of  Congress,  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  disturbing  the  usual  mode  of  settlement.     [Laughter.] 

After  I  became  a  member  of  the  Senate,  I  revived  this  claim  of  Maryland,  under 
instructions  from  my  State  Legislature,  and  I  introduced  a  general  bill,  providing  for  the 
liquidation  of  the  interest  due  to  the  different  States  of  the  Union,  which  had  made  such 
advances  in  a  body.  It  was  objected  to  by  a  gentlemen,  then  a  Senator  from  Alabama, 
who  preferred  that  each  State  should  have  its  own  claim  rest  on  its  own  basis.  He  intro- 
duced another  bill  for  the  benefit  of  the  State  of  Alabama,  and  it  was  passed  through  the 
Senate,  and  under  that  bill  the  State  of  Alabama  was  paid  according  to  the  old  mode  of 
computation.  The  Senate  will  remark,  however,  that  this  rule  was  always  adopted  in  the 
allowance  of  interest.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  never  paid  interest,  except 
where  the  State  had  paid  interest  itself  upon  its  advance,  or  had  lost  interest,  and  Ala- 
bama obtained  her  allowance  of  interest  because  the  funds  which  she  had  applied  to  aid 
the  General  Government  were  taken  from  a  bank  which  was  her  property,  and  she  had 
thus  been  obliged  to  contract  her  line  of  discounts,  and  so  lost  interest.  The  State  of 
Maryland  obtained  interest  because  she  had  liquidated  the  bonds  which  she  had  given  to 
her  creditors  for  the  money  she  applied  for  the  service  of  the  Government  during  the  war, 
by  selling  United  States  stock  of  which  she  was  owner,  thus  transferring  to  the  liquida- 
tion of  this  obligation  an  interest-bearing  fund.  The  principle  was  that  the  United  States 
would  pay  no  interest,  except  where  interest  had  actually  been  paid  or  lost  by  the  State. 

As  the  State  of  Maryland  came  within  that  category  she  was  entitled  to  interest,  and 
after  long  years  of  dispute  on  the  subject,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  at  the  last 
session,  passed  the  Act  which  has  been  referred  to,  providing  for  the  reexamination  and 
readjustment  of  the  account  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  and  directing  that  the  interest 
should  be  calculated  according  to  certain  rules  laid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  for  that  purpose ;  that  is  to  say,  first  applying  the  payments  to  the  interest, 
and  when  the  interest  was  all  liquidated  then  applying  them  to  the  principal;  and  under 
that  Act  I  think  the  State  of  Maryland  received,  after  the  last  session  of  Congress,  about 
two  hundred  and  seventy  thousand  dollars.  There  are  several  States  interested  in  like 
manner;  I  do  not  recollect  how  many;  but  when  I  originally  introduced  the  bill  I  carefully 
noticed  the  States  interested  and  their  number,  and  no  doubt  the  amount  will  be  very 
large.  Delaware,  South  Carolina,  Virginia,  and  several  other  States  are  interested,  and 
the  amount  is  very  large;  but  I  do  not  know  that  magnitude  of  the  obligation  is  any 
defense  against  the  passage  of  an  Act  for  payment,  according  to  the  principles  of  equity 
which  have  been  applied  to  the  State  of  Maryland.  This  is  an  inconvenient  time,  it  is 
true,  for  us  to  be  dunned  for  this  money;  but  I  think  we  ought  to  settle  fairly,  if  we  do 
nothing  else.  If  we  cannot  pay  the  money,  we  ought,  at  least,  to  acknowledge  the  obli- 
gation. 

[Second  session  Thirty-fifth  Congress.] 

In  Senate,  Febeuary  — ,  1859. 

The  Army  Bill  being  under  consideration: 

Mr.  Iverson.  I  am  instructed  by  the  Committee  on  Claims  to  offer  the  following 
amendment: 

That  all  the  States  which  have  had,  or  shall  have  refunded  to  them  by  the  United 
States,  moneys  expended  by  such  States  for  military  purposes  during  or  since  the  war  of 
1812  with  Great  Britain,  which  have  not  already  been  allowed  interest  upon  the  moneys 
so  expended,  shall  now  be  allowed  interest,  so  far  as  they  have  themselves  paid  or  lost  it, 
said  interest  to  be  computed  by  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury,  according 
to  the  provisions  and  principles  directed  to  be  applied  to  the  case  of  Maryland  by  the 
twelfth  section  of  the  Act  of  March  3,  1857,  entitled  "An  Act  making  appropriations  for 
certain  civil  expenses  of  the  Government  for  the  year  ending  the  thirtieth  of  June,  1858," 
and  that  all  the  States  which  have  been  allowed  interest  upon  claims  against  the  United 
States,  accruing  during  or  since  the  said  war  of  1812,  shall  be  entitled  to  have  their  inter- 
est accounts  reexamined  and  restated  by  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury, 
according  to  the  provisions  and  principles  of  the  twelfth  section  of  said  Act  of  March  3, 
1857,  and  that  those  provisions  and  principles  shall  govern  the  computation  of  interest  in 
all  cases  in  which  interest  may  hereafter  be  allowed  to  any  of  the  States.  Any  money 
found  to  be  due  to  any  State,  as  directed  by  this  section  to  be  computed  and  ascertained, 
shall  be  paid  to  such  State  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropri- 
ated: provided,  that,  in  lieu  of  the  payment  of  money,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  pay 
the  State  of  Maryland  on  such  sums  only  on  which  the  said  State  either  paid  interest  or 
lost  interest  by  the  transfer  of  an  interest-bearing  fund. 

This  provision  was  applied  by  that  Act  to  the  State  of  Maryland,  and  under  the  accounts 
of  that  State  were  reopened  and  readjusted  at  the  Treasury  Department,  and  she  was 
paid  back,  if  I  remember  aright,  the  sum  of  $272,000.  The  amendment  which  I  now  pro- 
pose, simply  puts  all  the  States  precisely  on  the  footing  that  the  Act  of  1857  put  the  State 
of  Maryland.  It  is  just  and  proper  that  the  rule,  if  applied  to  one  State,  should  be  applied 
to  all;  and  the  rule  is  itself  just  and  proper.    Heretofore  the  mode  of  calculating  interest  at 


557 

the  Treasury  Department  has  been  the  one  which  was  in  vogue  some  half  century  or 
century  ago,  and  which  has  long  since  been  exploded  in  every  civilized  country.  They 
calculated  the  interest  upon  the  principal  up  to  the  time  of  the  settlement,  and  they  cal- 
culated interest  upon  the  various  payments  up  to  the  time  of  the  settlement,  and  struck 
a  balance.  That  mode  of  calculating  interest  has  been  exploded  in  every  State  in  the 
Union.  Not  a  single  State  now  adheres  to  it,  although  it  was,  in  early  days,  when  I  was 
a  boy,  the  mode  of  calculating  interest.  The  mode  now  is  that  applied  to  the  accounts  of 
the  State  of  Maryland,  first  to  compute  interest  up  to  the  time  of  the  first  payment,  and 
then  apply  the  payment,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  extinguishment  of  the  interest,  and 
then  apply  any  surplus  to  the  extinguishment  of  the  principal,  and  so  on  of  each  payment 
of  interest.  That  is  the  principle  on  which  the  accounts  of  Maryland  have  been  settled, 
and  I  propose  to  apply  it  to  all  the  States  of  the  Union.    It  is  just  and  proper. 

The  amendment,  you  will  perceive,  does  not  give  the  States  interest  unless  they  paid  it 
themselves  or  lost  it'by  the  transfer  of  an  interest-bearing  fund.  It  is  just  and  proper  that 
every  State  should  be  put  upon  the  same  footing  as  the  State  of  Maryland.  And  the 
principle  of  settlement  proposed  is  just  and  proper  in  itself.  It  is  the  mode  adopted  by 
every  State  in  the  Union  in  the  calculation  of  interest.  I  have  put  in  the  amendment  a 
provision  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  pay  these  amounts  to  the  States  in  five 
per  cent  bonds  of  the  United  States,  redeemable  in  ten  years  or  sooner,  at  the  discretion 
of  the  President.  The  States,  I  understand,  are  perfectly  willing  to  take  five  per  cent 
bonds  of  the  United  States  instead  of  the  money.  In  the  present  embarrassed  condition 
of  the  country,  we  think  it  prudent  and  proper  to  make  this  provision.  With  this 
explanation  of  the  case,  I  hope  the  Senate  will  adopt  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Hunter.  At  the  last  session  I  voted  against  the  provision  when  it  was  introduced, 
but  I  believe  the  opinion  of  the  State  which  I  represent  is,  that  she  is  entitled  to  the  money ; 
and  although  1  would  never  have  used  my  official  position  to  introduce  it,  I  feel  bound  to 
vote  for  it  as  her  representative.  I  suppose,  in  justice,  if  we  were  settling  the  account 
originally,  this  would  be  the  proper  mode  of  doing  it.  I  do  not  think  it  well  to  reopen 
these  old  accounts  which  have  been  settled,  and  with  the  settlement  of  which  the  States 
were  satisfied  in  former  times;  but  the  precedent  which  has  been  set  in  the  case  of  Mary- 
land has  made  all  the  States  desire  the  application  of  the  same  principle  to  them,  and"^! 
believe  most  of  them  have  agents  here,  and  are  insisting  upon  it. 

********* 

Mr.  Iverson  called  for  the  ayes  and  nays,  and  they  were  ordered. 

Mr.  Fessenden.  I  wish  to  say  a  word  about  this  proposition ;  because  I  think,  when  the 
Senate  understands  it,  there  will  be  no  dilficulty  in  passing  it.  I  think  there  can  be  no 
dispute  about  it.  I  advocated  this  provision  last  year,  against  the  opposition  of  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  Finance;  and  I  have  no  sort  of  disposition  to  change  ray  action 
because  it  turns  out  that  the  State  of  West  Virginia  is  so  largely  interested  as  she  is.  I 
do  not  mean  to  say  that  that  affects  his  action,  because  everybody  knows  that  he  is  not 
influenced  in  that  way.  I  mean  simply  to  say,  in  regard  to  myself,  that  Virginia  has  a 
large  claim  under  this  provision,  much  larger  than  it  was  supposed  any  State  could  have; 
but  that  does  not  affect  my  action,  or  induce  me  to  change  my  vote.  I  have  no  doubt, 
from  the  honorable  Senator's  well  known  habit  of  looking  out  for  the  Treasury,  that  if 
Virginia  would  let  him  alone,  he  would  vote  against  the  amendment,  although  his  State 
will  be  so  much  benefited  by  it.  ' 

But,  sir,  the  principle  of  settlement  proposed  is  a  very  simple  one,  and  a  perfectly  honest 
one.  In  settling  these  claims  the  Government  officers  have  heretofore  acted  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  applying  partial  payments  to  the  discharge  of  the  principal,  and  letting  the  interest 
accumulate.  It  is  no  question  about  paying  interest;  that  is  settled.  This  class  of  claims 
always  carry  interest,  and  it  is  always  allowed.  The  Government  let  the  interest  run  on  until 
it  got  to  be*  as  large  as  the  principal.  They  then  paid  a  certain  amount;  but  instead  of 
applying  that  amount  to  the  interest  which  was  due,  they  applied  it  to  the  principal  and 
let  the  interest  stand,  which  did  not  carry  interest;  that  is  to  say,  they  paid  the  principal 
before  the  interest.  They  did  worse  than  that  in  many  cases,  as  I  understand;  when  they 
came  to  settle  up  fairly  they  charged  interest  on  the  payment  of  the  principal  up  to  the 
time  of  the  settlement,  and  allowed  no  interest  on  the  interest  existing.  Thus  they  made 
the  payment  of  the  principal  eat  up  the  interest. 

This  mode  of  settlement  was  grossly  unjust,  and  as  great  an  outrage  as  anything  could 
be.  It  was  contrary  to  the  mode  in  which  interest  is  computed  between  individual  and 
individual.  Maryland  applied  for  a  recomputation,  and  Congress  passed  a  law  to  allow  it. 
All  that  is  now  asked  is  to  place  every  other  State  on  the  same  footing — there  may  be  some 
half  dozen  of  them — that  advanced  money  on  the  same  foundation  on  which  you  placed 
Maryland,  not  only  to  do  the  thing  equally  as  between  the  States,  but  to  do  the  just  thing, 
and  pay  mofiey  which  is  absolutely  due  without  any  sort  of  question. 

The  following  thirty-four  Senators  voted  in  favor  of  the  amendment,  viz.,  twenty-six  in 
1858,  and  eight  others^in  1859:  Bayard,  Benjaniin,  Bigler,  Bright,  Brown,  Chestnut,  Clark, 
Collamer,  Crittenden,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Durkee,  Fessenden,  Fitch,  Foot,  Foster,  Hamlin, 
Hammond,  Harlan,  Hunter,  Iverson,  Kennedy,  Mallory,  Mason,  Pearce,  Polk,  Rice,  Sew- 
ard, Simmons,  Thomson,  Toombs,  Wade,  Wilson,  Yulee — 34. 

The  amendment  prevailed  in  the  Senate,  but  failed  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in 
a  close  vote,  when  avowed  friends,  enough  to  have  carried  it,  voted  in  the  negative,  because 
of  the  then  condition  of  the  Treasury. 


558 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.     House  of  Representatives.     Report  No.  3126. 

FIRST  NATIONAL  BANK  OF  NEWTON,  MASSACHUSETTS. 

June  30,  1886 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House,  and 
ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Gallinger,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 
[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  1125.] 

The  Committee  on  Claims,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H.  R.  1125) 
for  the  relief  of  the  First  National  Bank  of  Newton,  Massachusetts,  having 
considered  the  same,  respectfully  report: 

That  this  bill  was  favorably  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Claims  of 
the  Senate  in  the  Forty-eighth  Congress,  and  after  an  exhaustive  dis- 
cussion passed  that  body.  It  has  again  been  favorably  reported  by  the 
Committee  on  Claims  of  the  Senate,  the  report  being  made  by  Senator 
Jackson,  which  we  adopt,  as  follows: 

That  on  and  prior  to  February  28,  1867,  Julius  F.  Hartwell  was  Cashier  of  the  United 
States  Sub-Treasury  in  Boston,  Massachusetts.  While  acting  as  such  Cashier  he  embez- 
zled a  large  amount  of  the  Government's  money  by  lending  the  same  to  the  firm  of  Mellon, 
Ward  &  Co.,  who  were  extensively  engaged  in  stock  speculations.  As  the  time  for  the 
examination  of  the  funds  in  the  Sub-Treasury  approached,  March  1, 1867,  when  Hartwell's 
accounts  would  have  to  be  passed,  some  plan  had  to  be  devised  by  the  guilty  parties  to 
prevent  or  delay  exposure.  The  device  resorted  to  and  pM  in  operation  was  to  procure 
funds  and  assets  of  innocent  third  parties  to  be  placed  temporarily  on  deposit  in  the  Sub- 
Treasury  till  the  examination  was  had,  and  then  to  be  immediately  withdrawn  again,  and 
thus  tide  Hartwell  and  his  associates  in  the  embezzlement  over  the  crisis.  Edward  Carter, 
the  active  financial  member  of  said  firm  of  Mellon,  Ward  &  Co.,  who  concocted  this 
scheme  with  Hartwell,  was  a  Director  in  the  First  National  Bank  of  Newton,  and  seems 
to  have  possessed  not  onlj"  the  confidence  of,  but  unlimited  influence  over,  E.  Porter  Dj'^er, 
the  Cashier  of  said  bank.  By  means  of  this  confidence  and  influence,  and  in  execution  of 
his  and  Hartwell's  fraudulent  conspiracy.  Carter  procured  from  Dyer  the  money,  bonds, 
securities,  and  checks  of  the  First  National  Bank  of  Newton,  to  the  amount  of  $371,025, 
which  were  deposited  in  the  Bub-Treasury  on  February  28,  1867,  Hartwell  giving  a  receipt 
therefor,  as  Cashier,  that  the  deposit  was  "  to  be  returned  on  demand  in  Governments,  or 
bills,  or  its  equivalent."  This  receipt,  being  in  the  name  of  Mellon,  Ward  &  Co.,  was 
immediately  indorsed  by  Carter,  as  follows :  "  Pay  only  to  the  order  of  E.  Porter  Dyer,  Jr., 
Cashier,"  and  signed  Mellon,  Ward  &  Co. 

This  deposit  of  its  funds  and  assets  was  made  without  the  knowledge  and  consent  of 
the  President  and  Directors  of  the  First  National  Bank  of  Newton.  Hartwell's  default 
was  discovered  on  the  night  of  February  28,  and  on  March  1,  1867,  when  Dyer  presented 
the  above  receipt  and  demanded  its  reclemption,  payment  was  refused,  and  the  bank's 
funds  and  securities  were  held  and  applied  by  the  Government  to  make  good  Hartwell's 
default.  The  capital  stock  of  the  bank  was  $150,000.  It  was  doing  and  for  years  had  done 
a  prosperous  and  profitable  business;  but  this  fraudulent  misapplication  and  appropria- 
tion of  its  assets  ruined  the  institution,  and  on  March  11,  1867,  it  was  placed  in  the  hands 
of  a  receiver,  and  to  make  good  its  losses  and  provide  the  means  to  discharge  its  debts 
the  stockholders  were  compelled  to  pay  in  a  second  time  the  amount  of  their  respective 
holdings  of  its  capital  stock.  On  February  24,  1873,  the  First  National  Bank  of  Newton 
filed  its  petition  in  the  Court  of  Claims  against  the  United  States  to  recover  the  amount 
of  its  funds  and  assets  so  deposited  in  the  Sub-Treasury  and  appropriated  by  the  Govern- 
ment. The  case  was  heard  in  December,  1880,  and  judgment  was  rendered  in  favor  of  the 
bank  January  24,  1881,  for  the  full  amount  of  the  principal  claimed,  viz.,  $371,025.  The  full 
details  of  the'  conspiracy  and  transaction  by  which  the  Government,  through  the  fraud  of 
its  agent,  wrongfully  got  possession  of  the  bank's  assets,  are  clearly  set  forth  in  10  Court 
of  Claims  Reports,  p.  519;  96  United  States  Supreme  Court  Reports,  30;  and  16  Court 
of  Claims  Reports,  p.  54,  to  which  reference  is  here  made  for  a  more  complete  statement 
of  the  facts  than  hereinabove  stated.  In  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  Court  of  Claims  in 
the  bank's  suit.  Chief  Justice  Drake  characterized  the  taking  of  its  assets  as  a  ^^villainous 
scheme,"  and  the  transaction  as  "  simply  a  case  of  a  bank  being  robbed,  and  of  its  stolen 
assets  being  put  into  the  hands  of  the  Cashier  of  the  Sub-Treasury  for  a  purpose  which 
by  no  possible  view  could  in  law  be  held  to  effect  a  transfer  of  the  bank's  right  of  property 
in  them  either  to  him  or  to  the  United  States."  That  the  United  States  could  not  derive 
a  benefit  from  the  fraudulent  act  of  their  Cashier,  or  lawfully  withhold  the  funds  thus 


559 

obtained,  admitted  of  no  question,  either  in  law  or  morals.  After  referring  to  many  of 
the  authorities  on  the  question,  the  Supreme  Court  (96  United  States  Reports,  p.  36)  say, 
in  conclusion : 

"  But  surely  it  ought  to  require  neither  argument  nor  authority  to  support  the  propo- 
sition that  where  the  money  or  property  of  an  innocent  person  has  gone  into  the  coffers 
of  the  nation  by  means  of  a  fraud  to  which  its  agent  was  a  party,  such  money  or  property 
cannot  be  held  by  the  United  States  against  the  claim  of  the  wronged  and  injured  party. 
The  agent  was  agent  for  no  such  purpose.  His  doings  were  vitiated  by  the  underlying 
dishonesty,  and  could  confer  no  rights  upon  his  principal." 

On  the  twenty-eighth  of  April,  1881,  a  duly  certified  copy  of  the  bank's  judgment  against 
the  United  States  was  presented  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  as  provided  by  law. 
Before  its  payment,  the  now  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States,  in  March,  1881, 
entered  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court.  This  appeal  seems  to  have  been  taken  for  the 
purpose  of  enabling  him  to  examine  the  case.  After  making  such  examination,  and  find- 
ing the  case  undistinguishable  from  that  reported  in  96  United  States  Reports,  ai)ove  cited, 
the  appeal,  which  had  been  in  the  meantime  entered  in  the  Supreme  Court,  was,  on  his 
motion,  dismissed  in  that  Court  October  25, 1881. 

Thereafter,  on  October  29,  1881,  the  sum  of  $260,000  was  paid  on  account  of  this  judg- 
ment, by  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  that  being  the  only  amount  available  under 
the  appropriation  then  existing.    The  balance  of  $111,025  was  paid  August  30,  1882. 

Such  is  a  brief  history  of  the  case.  The  bill  under  consideration  proposes  to  pay  the 
bank  interest  on  the  amount  of  its  funds  so  taken  and  appropriated  by  the  United  States, 
from  date  of  conversion  to  time  of  payment.  The  Court  of  Claims  was  not  authorized 
to  award  such  interest,  its  jurisdiction  in  the  matter  of  "interest"  being  confined  to 
cases  of  contract  expresslj'-  stipulating  for  the  payment  of  interest.  It  will  hardly  be 
insisted  that  this  restriction  upon  one  of  its  tribunals  settles  either  the  question  of  the 
Government's  liability  or  the  measure  of  its  duty  in  a  case  like  the  present,  where  the 
contract  relation  is  not  voluntarily  assumed  by  the  party  making  the  claim.  The  Govern- 
ment may,  with  propriety,  refuse  to  recognize  any  obligation  to  pay  interest  to  those  who 
voluntarily  deal  with  it,  without  expressly  stipulating  for  the  payment  of  interest.  But 
the  question  of  its  obligation  to  malce  indemnity  by  the  allowance  of  interest,  where  the 
creditor  relation  is  forced  upon  the  individual  by  the  wrongful  act  of  the  Government  or 
its  agents,  stands  upon  a  different  footing,  and  should  be  determined  by  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  the  public  law  and  the  rules  of  natural  justice  and  equity  applicable  to  the  facts 
and  circumstances  of  the  particular  case.  Ordinarily  the  Government  cannot  and  should 
not  be  made  responsible  to  the  extent  of  individuals  for  the  wrongful  acts  of  its  officers 
or  agents.  But  this  rule  cannot  be  justly  invoked  to  shield  or  protect  the  Government 
from  the  measure  of  responsibility  apijlied  to  private  persons  where  it  has  adopted  such 
wrongful  acts  and  derived  an  advantage  and  benefit  therefrom.  Where  the  Government 
has  profited  by  the  fraud  of  its  agent,  why  should  it  deny  to  the  injured  party  the  full 
redress  that  Courts  of  equity  would  afford  as  between  individuals  and  private  corpora- 
tions ?  In  the  jurisprudence  of  all  civilized  countries  the  general  doctrine  is  well  settled 
that  any  one — except  a  "  bona  fide  "  purchaser  for  value  and  without  notice — who  obtains 
possession  of  property  which  has  been  procured  from  the  owner  hy  fraudulent  means  or 
practices  is  converted  by  the  Courts  into  a  trustee,  and  ordered  to  account  as  such ;  or,  as 
stated  by  Perry  on  Trusts,  Section  166,  the  principle  "  denotes  that  the  parties  defrauded, 
or  beneficially  entitled,  have  the  same  right  and  remedies  against  him  as  they  would  be 
entitled  to  against  an  express  trustee  who  had  fraiidulently  committed  a  breach  of  trust." 
Whenever  the  principal  adopts  the  fraudulent  act  of  his  agent,  or  attempts  to  reap  an 
advantage  therefrom,  his  liability  is  properly  measured  by  this  rule.  Indeed  (says  Perry 
on  Trusts,  172),  the  doctrine  has  been  thus  broadly  stated: 

"  That  when  once  a  fraud  has  been  committed,  not  only  is  the  person  who  committed 
the  fraud  precluded  from  deriving  any  benefit  from  it,  but  every  innocent  person  is  so 
likewise,  unless  he  has  innocently  acquired  a  subsequent  interest;  for  a  third  person  by 
seeking  to  derive  any  benefit  under  such  a  transaction,  or  to  retain  any  benefit  resulting 
therefrom,  becomes  particeps  criminis,  however  innocent  of  the  fraud  in  the  beginning." 

It  would  not  admit  of  a  moment's  doubt  that  in  the  present  case  interest  would  have 
been  awarded  the  bank  as  against  the  agent  committing  the  fraud.  It  is  also  clear  that 
as  against  any  private  principal  occupying  the  position  of  the  Government  the  bank 
could  and  would  have  received  interest!^  Why  should  not  the  Government,  standing  as 
it  does  under  this  transaction  in  the  attitude  of  a  trustee,  if  not  a  particeps  criminis, 
be  held  to  the  same  measure  of  responsibility  and  redress  ?  Nothing  short  of  this  will 
meet  the  justice  of  the  case  or  afford  the  equitable  relief  to  which  the  bank  is  justly  enti- 
tled. A  great  Government  like  ours,  with  unlimited  resources  and  revenues  at  its  com- 
mand, should  above  all  things  deal  justly  with  its  citizens.  It  should  not  stand  upon 
technicalities  in  withholding  property  or  funds  which  may  have  wrongfully  come  into  its 
possession.  It  should  never  make  for  itself  a  profit  or  secure  and  retain  an  advantage 
through  the  fraud  of  its  agents  or  by  any  breach  of  trust  which  has  worked  a  wrong  and 
injury.  It  should  in  such  cases  make  such  reparation  as  its  Courts  would  enforce  as 
between  individuals. 

The  American  Consul  at  Geneva  successfully  claimed  interest  upon  the  amounts 
awarded  to  the  United  States  against  Great  Britain.  The  counsel  for  Great  Britain,  while 
objecting  to  the  application  of  the  principle  allowing  interest,  distinguished  between  cases 
where,  in  their  view,  it  should  and  should  not  be  allowed,  in  language  strikingly  applica- 
ble here;  and  attention  is  called  to  it  as  being  a  concession,  on  the  part  of  a  party  object- 
ing to  the  allowance  of  interest,  which  covers  the  present  case,  as  follows: 


560 

"  Interest,  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  word,  can  only  be  allowed  where  there  is  a  prin- 
cipal debt  of  liquidated  and  ascertained  amount  detained  and  withheld  by  the  deVjtor 
from  the  creditor  after  the  time  when  it  was  absolutely  due  and  ought  to  have  been  paid^ 
the  fault  of  the  delay  in  payment  resting  with  the  debtor;  or  where  the  debtor  has 
wrongfully  taken  possession  of  and  exercised  dominion  over  the  property  of  the  creditor. 
In  the  former  case,  from  the  time  when  the  debt  ought  to  have  been  paid,  the  debtor  has 
had  the  use  of  the  creditor's  money,  and  may  justly  be  presumed  to  have  employed  it  for 
his  own  profit  and  advantage.  He  has  thus  made  a  gain  corresponding  with  the  loss 
which  the  creditor  has  sustained  by  being  deprived,  during  the  same  period  of  time,  of 
the  use  of  his  money;  and  it  is  evidently  just  that  he  should  account  to  the  creditor  for  the 
interest  which  the  law  takes  as  the  measure  of  this  reciprocal  gain  and  loss.  In  the  latter 
case  the  principle  is  exactly  the  same.  It  is  ordinarily  to  be  presumed  that  the  person 
who  has  wrongfully  taken  possession  of  the  property  of  another  has  enjoyed  the  fruits 
of  it;  and  if,  instead  of  this,  he  has  destroyed  it  or  kept  it  unproductive,  it  is  still  just  to 
hold  him  responsible  for  interest  on  its  value,  because  his  own  acts,  after  the  time  when 
he  assumed  control  over  it,  are  the  causes  why  it  has  remained  unfruitful.  In  all  these 
cases  it  is  the  actual  or  virtual  possession  of  the  money  or  property  helo(aging  to  another  which 
is  the  foundation  of  the  liability  of  interest.  The  person  liable  is  either  lucratus  by  the 
detention  of  what  is  not  his  own,  or  is  justly  accountable  as  if  he  were  so." 

In  the  case  under  consideration,  the  funds  of  the  bank — an  amount  fixed  and  liqui- 
dated—have been  wrongfully  withheld  for  many  years,  during  which  the  Government  has 
retained  and  used  them,  and  to  that  extent  has  made  or  saved  interest,  of  which  the  bank 
throughout  the  same  period  lost  such  interest.  In  allowing  interest  at  a  low  rate  the 
bank  will  receive  only  (or  less  than)  what  it  was  unjustly  deprived  of,  while  the  United 
States  will  only  yield  up  what  it  has  received  or  saved  that  rightfully  belonged  to  the 
bank,  for  it  cannot  be  questioned  that  the  use  of  the  principal  sum  has  put  the  Government 
in  receipt  of  additional  funds  to  the  amount  of  the  value  of  such  use.  The  claim  is  thus 
brought  within  the  general  principle  so  clearly  and  forcibly  stated  in  the  above  quoted 
extract  from  the  counsel  of  Great  Britain. 

In  this  statement  of  the  proposition  which  should  govern  the  present  case  it  is  hardly 
necessary  to  say  that  the  committee  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  even  suggesting 
that  the  same  rule  could  or  should  be  applied  to  that  large  class  of  cases  known  as  war 
claims.  They  stand  entirely  upon  a  different  footing.  Every  man,  woman,  and  child 
residing,  during  the  war,  inthe  insurrectionary  territory,  became  thereby  an  enemy  of 
the  United  States.  The  Government  could  have  asserted  against  each  and  all  of  them 
the  extremest  measures  conceded  by  the  public  law  to  belligerents.  That  it  did  not  adopt 
this  policy,  but  modified  the  harsher  rules  of  war,  by  which  it  waived  some  of  its  bellig- 
erent rights,  could  not  be  made  in  any  case  the  basis  of  a  claim  for  interest,  nor  lay  the 
ground  for  the  payment  of  interest.  Take,  for  illustration,  the  captured  and  abandoned 
property  cases.  TThis  property  and  its  proceeds,  under  the  modern  rules  of  war,  could 
have  been  appropriated  to  the  absolute  use  of  the  Government.  Instead  of  pursuing  this 
course,  the  Government,  in  a  spirit  of  liberality,  adopted  the  generous  policy  of  making 
itself  a  depository  of  these  funds,  to  be  held  for  the  benefit  of  the  real  owners.  The 
proposition  to  allow  interest  on  such  claims  should  not  and  would  not  be  entertained  for 
a  moment. 

It  cannot  be  properly  urged  as  an  objection  to  this  claim  for  interest  that  the  bank 
should  be  held  responsible  to  some  extent  for  the  unfaithfulness  of  the  Cashier  whom  it 
had  selected  and  intrusted  with  certain  well  defined  duties  in  respect  to  its  funds  and 
assets.  No  want  of  care  is  shown  in  making  the  selection.  There  was  nothing  in  his 
previous  conduct  to  excite  suspicion  or  put  the  bank  upon  inquiry  or  notice  so  as  to 
charge  it  with  any  degree  of  negligence  in  retaining  him  in  its  employ.  The  doctrine  of 
contributory  neghgence  is  sometimes  looked  to  and  considered  in  the  determination  of 
the  better  equity  as  between  two  innocent  parties  who  have  been  defrauded  by  a  third 
party  who  has  been  trusted  by  both.  If  there  had  been  no  previous  default  on  the  jiart  of 
Hartwell,  and  he  had  on  the  night  of  February  28, 1867,  embezzled  the  funds  and  assets  of 
the  bank  that  day  deposited  with  him  by  Carter  and  Dyer,  the  Government  and  the  bank 
might  then  have  occupied  the  position  of  two  innocent  parties,  whose  equities  would 
have  to  be  determined  and  settled  to  some  extent  by  the  question  of  negligence  in  the 
employment  of  unfaithful  agents.  But  that  is  not  the  present  case.  The  Government 
had  already  lost  its  money  by  the  previous  embezzlement  of  its  Cashier  of  the  Sub- 
Treasury,  and  then,  through  the  corrupt  influence  of  that  same  agent  and  his  confederate, 
the  bank's  agent  is  tempted  by  a  "villainous  scheme  "  into  a  breach  of  his  trust,  by  means 
of  which  the  Government  obtains  possession  of  the  bank's  entire  assets,  and  wrongfully 
appropriates  them  in  making  good  its  previous  losses.  It  would  be  shocking  to  every 
sense  of  right  and  justice  for  the  Government  now  to  urge  that  the  unfaithfulness  of  the 
bank's  trusted  ageiit  was  a  bar  or  valid  defense  to  its  liability  and  duty  to  refund  either 
the  principal  or  interest  of  the  funds  so  procured  and  converted  to  its  own  use.  Your 
committee  have  too  much  regard  for  the  honor  and  good  name  of  the  Government  to 
allow  it  to  occupy  a  position  so  questionable.  It  should  be  observed,  too,  that  the  decision 
of  its  own  Courts  declaring  that  the  Government  could  not  rightfully  hold  the  assets  so 
fraudulently  obtained  has  really  disposed  of  this  question  of  negligence,  which  applied 
with  equal  force  to  the  recovery  of  the  principal  as  to  the  interest. 

To  the  objection  that  the  allowance  of  this  claim  for  interest  will  establish  a  bad  prece- 
dent, the  reply  of  Mr.  Sumner  to  a  similar  objection  is  a  complete  answer: 

"If  the  claim  is  just,  the  precedent  of  paying  it  is  one  which  our  Government  should 


.      661 

wish  to  establish.  Honesty  and  justice  are  not  precedents  of  which  either  Government 
or  individuals  should  be  afraid."  (Senate  Report  No.  4,  Forty-first  Congress,  first  session, 
p.  10.) 

But  it  is  respectfully  submitted  that  there  are  abundant  precedents,  both  in  the  judicial 
and  in  the  legislative  branches  of  the  Government,  to  support  the  present  application  for 
the  allowance  of  interest.  The  prevalent  idea  that  "the  Government  never  pays  interest" 
has  grown  up  from  the  practice  of  the  departments,  which  do  not  allow  interest  except 
where  it  is  specially  provided  for  in  cases  of  contracts  or  expressly  authorized  by  law. 
But  this  usage  and  custom  of  the  Executive  Departments  cannot  be  properly  regarded  as 
the  settled  rule  and  policy  of  the  Government,  for  its  action  upon  the  subject  of  interest 
has  not  from  the  earliest  time  conformed  to  such  usage.  On  the  contrary,  it  will  be 
found,  upon  an  examination  of  the  precedents  where  Congress  has  passed  Acts  for  the 
relief  of  private  citizens,  that  in  almost  every  case,  except  those  growing  out  of  the  late 
war,  Congress  has  directed  the  payment  of  interest  where  the  United  States  had  withheld 
a  sum  of  money  which  had  been  decided  by  competent  authority  to  be  due,  or  where  the 
amount  due  was  ascertained,  fixed,  and  certain.  The  highest  Court  of  the  country  has 
also  affirmed  this  to  be  not  only  the  practice  of  the  Government,  but  the  measure  of  its 
duty.  Thus,  in  15  Wallace,  p.  77,  where  the  suit  was  against  a  United  States  Collector  for 
the  recovery  of  taxes  illegally  collected,  the  Supreme  Court  used  the  following  language 
upon  the  subject  of  interest  allowed  on  the  claim,  viz. : 

"The  third  exception  is  to  the  instruction  that  if  the  jury  found  for  plaintiff  they 
might  add  interest.  This  was  not  contested  upon  the  argument,  and  w^e  think  it  clearly 
correct.  The  ground  for  the  refusal  to  allow  interest  is  the  presumption  that^  the  Government 
is  always  ready  and  willing  to  pay  its  ordinary  debts.  When  an  illegal  tax  has  been  col- 
lected, the  citizen  who  has  paid  it  and  has  been  obliged  to  bring  suit  against  the  Collector, 
is  entitled  to  interest  in  the  event  of  recovery  from  trie  time  of  the  alleged  exaction." 

On  June  8,  1872,  Congress  referred  the  claim  of  the  heirs  of  Francis  Vigo  to  the  Court 
of  Claims  in  the  following  language: 

"  The  claim  of  the  heirs  and  legal  representatives  of  Colonel  Francis  Vigo,  deceased, 
late  of  Terre  Haute,  Ind.,  for  money  and  supplies  furnished  the  troops  under  command 
of  General  George  Rogers  Clark,  in  the  year  1778,  during  the  Revolutionary  war,  be  and 
the  same  hereby  is  referred,  along  with  all  the  papers  and  official  documents  belonging 
thereto,  to  the  Court  of  Claims,  with  full  jurisdiction  to  adjust  and  settle  the  same;  and 
in  making  such  adjustment  and  settlement,  the  said  Court  shall  he  governed  by  the  rules 
and  regulations  heretofore  adopted  bj'  the  United  States  in  the  settlement  of  like  cases, 
giving  proper  consideration  to  official  acts,  if  any  have  heretofore  been  had  in  connection 
with  this  claim,  without  regard  to  the  statute  of  limitation." 

The  Court  of  Claims  allowed  the  claim,  with  interest  thereon  from  the  time  it  accrued, 
and  among  other  facts  found  that: 

"No  rules  and  regulations  have  heretofore  been  adopted  by  the  United  States  in  the 
settlement  of  like  cases,  except  such  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  policy  of  Congress  when 
passing  private  Acts  for  the  relief  of  various  persons.  When  passing  such  private  Acts, 
Congress  has  allowed  interest  upon  the  claim  up  to  the  time  that  the  relief  was  granted." 

The  Attorney-General  appealed  from  this  judgment  awarding  interest,  but  the  decision 
of  the  Court  below  was  affirmed  by  the  Supreme  Court,  at  the  October  term,  1875.  (See  91 
U.  S.  Rep.,  p.  443,  et  seq.)  In  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court,  Mr.  Justice 
Miller  says: 

"It  has  been  the  general  rule  of  the  officers  of  the  Government,  in  adjusting  and  allow- 
ing unliquidated  and  disputed  claims  against  the  United  States,  to  refuse  to  give  interest. 
That  this  rule  is  sometimes  at  variance  with  that  which  governs  the  acts  of  private  citi- 
zens in  a  Court  of  justice,  would  not  authorize  us  to  depart  from  it  in  this  case.  The  rule, 
however,  is  not  uniform;  and  especially  is  it  not  so  in  regard  to  claims  allowed  by  special 
Acts  of  Congress,  or  referred  by  such  xVcts  to  some  department  or  officer  for  settlement." 

This  was  said  in  reference  to  unliquidated  and  unadjusted  claims.  Where  the  Govern- 
ment, by  and  through  the  fraud  of  its  agents,  gets  possession  and  withholds  from  the 
rightful  owner  an  ascertained,  fixed,  and  certain  amount,  the  claim  for  interest  certainly 
stands  upon  higher  equitable  grounds  than  in  the  cases  cited.  The  finding  bj^  the  Court 
of  Claims  that  the  policy  of  the  Government,  as  shown  by  the  general  rule  pursued  by 
Congress  in  passing  Acts  for  the  relief  of  private  claims,  was  to  allow  interest,  is  supported 
by  the  precedents. 

Your  committee,  iipon  this  proposition,  beg  leave  to  refer  to  and  adopt  this  portion  of 
House  Report  391,  Forty-third  Congress,  first  session,  which  discusses  the  subject  of 
interest  as  follows : 

THE  OBLIGATION  TO   PAY   INTEREST  ON   THE   AMOUNT  AWARDED    THE   CHOCTAW   NATION. 

Your  committee  have  given  this  question  a  most  careful  examination,  and  are  obliged 
to  admit  and  declare  that  the  United  States  can  not  in  equity  and  justice,  nor  without 
national  dishonor,  refuse  to  pay  interest  upon  the  moneys  so  long  withheld  from  the 
Choctaw  Nation.    Some  of  the  reasons  which  force  us  to  this  conclusion  are  as  follows: 

1.  The  United  States  acquired  the  lands  of  the  Choctaw  Nation  on  account  of  which  the 
said  award  was  made,  ou  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  September,  1830,  and  it  has  held  them 
for  the  benefit  of  its  citizens  ever  since. 

2.  The  United  States  had  in  its  Treasury,  many  years  prior  to  the  first  day  of  January 

36"^ 


562 

1859,  the  proceeds  resulting  from  the  sale  of  the  said  lands,  and  have  enjoyed  the  use  of 
such  moneys  from  that  time  until  now. 

3.  The  award  in  favor  of  the  Choctaw  Nation  was  an  award  under  a  treaty,  and  made 
by  a  tribunal  whose  adjudication  was  final  and  conclusive.    (Comegys  vs.  Vasse,  1  Pet.,  193.) 

4.  The  obligations  of  the  United  States  under  its  treaties  with  Indian  nations  have  been 
declared  to  be  equally  sacred  with  those  made  by  treaties  with  foreign  nations.  (  Worcester 
vs.  The  State  of  Georgia,  6  Pet.,  582.)  And  such  treaties,  Mr.  Justice  Miller  declares,  are  to 
be  construed  iiberal'ly.    ( The  Kansas  Indians,  5  Wall.,  737-760.) 

5.  The  engagements  and  obligations  of  a  treaty  are  to  be  interpreted  in  accordance  with 
the  principles  of  the  public  law,  and  not  in  accordance  with  any  municipal  code  or  execu- 
tive regulation.  No  statement  of  this  proposition  can  equal  the  clearness  or  force  with 
which  Mr.  Webster  declares  it  in  his  opinion  on  the  Florida  claims  attached  to  the  report 
in  the  case  of  Letitia  Humphreys.  (Senate  report  No.  93,  first  session  Thirty-sixth  Con- 
gress, p.  16.)    Speaking  of  the  obligation  of  a  treaty,  he  said: 

"A  treaty  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  It  can  neither  be  limited  nor  restained,  nor 
modified,  nor  altered.  It  stands  on  the  ground  of  national  contract,  and  is  declared  by 
the  Constitution  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land;  and  this  gives  it  a  character  higher 
than  any  act  of  ordinary  legislation.  It  enjoys  an  immunity  from  the  operation  and 
effect  of  all  such  legislation. 

"A  second  general  proposition,  equally  certain  and  well  established,  is  that  the  terms 
and  the  language  used  in  a  treaty  are  always  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  law  of 
nations,  and  not  according  to  any  municipal  code.  This  rule  is  of  universal  application. 
When  two  nations  speak  to  each  other  they  use  the  language  of  nations.  Their  inter- 
course is  regulated,  and  their  mutual  agreements  and  obligations  are  to  be  interpreted  by 
that  code  only  which  we  usually  denominate  the  public  law  of  the  world.  This  public 
law  is  not  one  thing  at  Eome,  another  at  London,  and  a  third  at  Washington.  It  is  the 
same  in  all  civilized  States;  everywhere  speaking  with  the  same  voice  and  the  same 
authority." 

Again,  in  the  same  opinion,  Mr.  Webster  used  the  following  language: 

"  We  are  construing  a  treaty,  a  solemn  compact  between  nations.  This  compact  between 
nations,  this  treaty,  is  to  be  construed  and  interpreted  throughout  its  whole  length  and 
breadth,  in  its  general  provisions,  and  in  all  its  details,  in  every  phrase,  sentence,  word, 
and  syllable  in  it,  by  the  settled  rules  of  the  law  of  nations.  No  municipal  code  can  touch 
it,  no  local  municipal  law  affect  it,  no  practice  of  administrative  department  come  near 
it.  Over  all  its  terms,  over  all  its  doubts,  over  all  its  ambiguities,  if  it  had  any,  the  law  of 
nations  'sits  arbitress.'" 

6.  By  the  principles  of  the  public  law  interest  is  always  allowed  as  indemnity  for  the 
delay  of  payment  of  an  ascertained  and  fixed  denumd.  There  is  no  conflict  of  authority 
upon  this  question  among  the  writers  on  public  law. 

This  rule  is  laid  down  by  Rutherford  in  these  terms : 

"In  estimating  the  damages  which  any  one  has  sustained,  when  such  things  as  he  has 
a  perfect  right  to  are  unjustly  taken  from  him,  or  withholden,  or  intercepted,  we  are  to 
consider  not  only  the  value  of  the  thing  itself  but  the  value  likewise  of  the  fruits  or  profits 
that  might  have  arisen  from  it.  He  who  is  the  owner  of  the  thing  is  likewise  the  owner 
of  the  fruits  or  profits.  So  that  it  is  as  properly  a  damage  to  be  deprived  of  them  as  it  is 
to  be  deprived  of  the  thing  itself."    (Rutherford's  Institutes,  Book  I,  chap.  17,  sec.  5.) 

In  laying  down  the  rule  for  the  satisfaction  of  injuries  in  the  case  of  reprisals,  in  making 
which  the  strictest  caution  is  enjoined  not  to  transcend  the  clearest  rules  of  justice,  Mr. 
Wheaton,  in  his  work  on  the  law  of  nations,  says: 

"  If  a  nation  has  taken  possession  of  that  which  belongs  to  another,  if  it  refuses  to  pay  a 
debt,  to  repair  an  injury,  or  to  give  adequate  satisfaction  for  it,  the  latter  may  seize  some- 
thing of  the  former  and  apply  it  to  his  or  its  advantage,  till  it  obtains  payment  of  what  is 
due,  together  with  interest  and  damages."    (Wheaton  on  International  Law,  p.  341.) 

A  great  writer,  Domat,  thus  states  the  law  of  reason  and  justice  on  this  point: 

*'It  is  a  natural  consequence  of  the  general  engagement  to  do  wrong  to  no  one  that  they 
who  cause  any  damage  by  failing  in  the  jjerformance  of  that  engagement  are  obliged  to 
repair  the  damage  which  they  have  done.  Of  what  nature  soever  the  damage  may  be, 
and  from  what  cause  soever  it  may  proceed,  he  who  is  answerable  for  it  ought  to  repair 
it  by  an  amende  proportionable  either  to  his  fault  or  to  his  offense  or  other  cause  on  his 
part,  and  to  the  loss  w'hich  has  happened  thereby."  (Domat,  Part  I,  Book  III,  Tit.  V, 
1900, 1903.) 

"  Interest"  is,  in  reality,  in  justice,  in  reason,  and  in  law,  too,  a  part  of  the  debt  due.  It 
includes,  in  Pothier's  words,  the  loss  which  one  has  suffered,  and  the  gain  which  he  has 
failed  to  make.  The  Roman  law  defines  it  as  "quantum  mea  interfuit;  id  est,  quantum 
mihi  abest,  quantumque  lucrari  potui."  The  two  elements  of  it  were  termed  "lucrum 
cessans  et  damnum  emergens."  The  payment  of  both  is  necessary  to  a  complete  indem- 
nity. 

Interest,  Domat  says,  is  the  reparation  or  satisfaction  which  he  who  owes  a  sum  of 
money  is  bound  to  make  to  his  creditor  for  the  damage  which  he  does  him  by  not  paying 
him  the  money  he  owes  him. 

It  is  because  of  the  universal  recognition  of  the  justice  of  paying,  for  the  retention  of 
moneys  indisputably  due  and  payable  immediately,  a  rate  of  interest  considered  to  be  a 
fair  equivalent  for  the  loss  of  its  use,  that  judgments  for  money  everj^where  bear  interest. 
The  creditor  is  deprived  of  his  profit,  and  the  debtor  has  it.  What  greater  wrong  could 
the  law  permit  than  that  the  debtor  should  be  at  liberty  indefinitely  to  delay  payment. 


563 

and  during  the  delay  have  the  use  of  the  creditor's  moneys  for  nothing?  They  are  none 
the  less  the  creditor's  moneys  because  the  debtor  wrongfully  withholds  them.  He  holds 
them,  in  reality  and  essentially,  in  trust;  and  a  trustee  is  always  hound  to  pay  interest  upon 
moneys  so  held. 

In  closing  these  citations  from  the  public  law,  the  language  of  Chancellor  Kent  seems 
eminently  appropriate.  He  says:  "In  cases  where  the  principal  jurists  agree,  the  pre- 
sumption will  be  very  great  in  favor  of  the  solidity  of  their  maxims,  and  no  civilized  nation 
that  does  not  arrogantly  set  all  ordinary  law  and  justice  at  defiance  will  venture  to  disregard  the 
uniform  sense  of  established  writers  on  international  law^ 

7.  The  practice  of  the  United  States  in  discharging  obligations  resulting  from  treaty 
stipulations  has  always  been  in  accord  with  these  well  established  principles.  It  has 
exacted  the  payment'of  interest  from  other  nations  in  all  cases  where  the  obligation  to 
make  payment  resulted  from  treaty  stipulations,  and  it  has  acknowledged  that  obligation 
in  all  cases  where  a  like  liability  was  imposed  upon  it. 

The  most  important  and  leading  cases  which  have  occurred  are  those  which  arose 
between  this  country  and  Great  Britain;  the  first  under  the  treaty  of  1794,  and  the  other 
under  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent.  In  the  latter  case  the  United  States,  under 
the  first  article  of  the  treaty,  claimed  compensation  for  slaves  and  other  property  taken 
away  from  the  country  by  the  British  forces  at  the  close  of  the  war  in  1815.  A  difference 
arose  between  the  two  Governments,  which  was  submitted  to  the  arbitrament  of  the 
Emx)eror  of  Russia,  who  decided  that  "the  United  States  of  America  are  entitled  to  a  just 
indemnification  from  Great  Britain  for  all  private  property  carried  away  by  the  British 
forces."  A  joint  commission  was  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  hearing  the  claims  of  indi- 
viduals under  this  decision.  At  an  early  stage  of  the  proceedings  the  question  arose  as  to 
whether  interest  was  a  part  of  that  ^\just  indemnification''^  which  the  decision  of  the  Emperor 
of  Russia  contemplated.  The  British  Commissioner  denied  the  obligation  to  pay  interest. 
The  American  Commissioner,  Langdon  Cheves,  insisted  upon  its  allowance,  and  in  the 
course  of  his  argument  upon  this  question  said: 

"Indemnification  means  a  reimbursement  of  a  loss  sustained.  If  the  property  taken 
away  on  the  seventeenth  of  February,  1815.  were  returned  now  uninjured,  it  would  not 
reimburse  the  loss  sustained  by  the  taking  away  and  consequent  detention ;  it  would  not 
be  an  indemnification.  The  cfaimant  would  still  be  unindemnified  for  the  loss  of  the  use 
of  his  property  for  ten  years,  which,  considei:ed  as  money,  is  nearly  equivalent  to  the 
original  value  of  the  principal  thing." 

Again  he  says: 

"  If  interest  be  an  incident  usually  attendant  on  the  delay  of  payment  of  debts,  damages 
are  equally  an  incident  attendant  on  the  withholding  an  article  of  property." 

"In  consequence  of  this  disagreement  the  commission  was  broken  up;  but  the  claims 
were  subsequently  compromised  by  the  payment  of  $1,204,960,  instead  of  $1,250,000,  as 
claimed  by  Mr.  Cheves;  and  of  the  sum  paid  by  Great  Britain,  $418,000  was  expressly  for 
interest. 

An  earlier  case,  in  which  this  principle  of  interest  was  involved,  arose  under  the  treaty 
of  1794,  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  in  which  there  was  a  stipulation  on 
the  part  of  the  British  Government  in  relation  to  certain  losses  and  damages  sustained 
by  American  merchants  and  other  citizens,  by. reason  of  the  illegal  or  irregular  capture 
of  their  vessels,  or  other  property,  by  British  cruisers;  and  the  seventh  article  provided 
in  substance  that  "full  and  complete  compensation  for  the  same  will  be  made  by  the 
British  Government  to  the  said  claimants." 

A  joint  commission  was  instituted  under  this  treaty,  which  sat  in  London,  and  by  which 
these  claims  were  adjudicated.  Mr.  Pinckney  and  Mr.  Gore  were  Commissioners  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  and  Dr.  Nicholl  and  Dr.  Swabey  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain ; 
and  it  is  believed  that  in  all  instances  this  Commission  allowed  interest  as  a  part  of  the 
damage.  In  the  case  of  "The  Betsey,"  one  of  the  cases  which  came  before  the  Board,  Dr. 
Nicholl  stated  the  rule  of  compensation  as  follows: 

"To  reimburse  the  claimants  the  original  cost  of  their  property,  and  all  the  expenses 
thty  have  actually  incurred,  together  with  interest  on  the  whole  amount,  would,  I  think, 
be  a  just  and  adequate  compensation.  This,  I  believe,  is  the  measure  of  compensation 
usually  made  by  all  the  belligerent  nations,  and  accepted  by  all  neutral  nations,  for  losses, 
costs,  and  damages  occasioned  by  illegal  captures."  (Vide  Wheaton's  Life  of  Pinckney, 
page  198;  also,  265,  note,  and  page  371.) 

By  a  reference  to  the  American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Relations,  vol.  2,  pages  119,  120, 
it  will  be  seen  by  a  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  of  the  sixteenth  February,  1798,  laid 
before  the  House  of  Representatives,  that  interest  was  awarded  and  paid  on  such  of  these 
claims  as  had  been  submitted  to  the  award  of  Sir  William  Scott  and  Sir  John  ISicholl,  as 
it  was  in  all  cases  by  the  Board  of  Commissioners.  In  consequence  of  some  difference  of 
opinion  between  the  members  of  this  Commission,  their  proceedings  were  suspended  until 
1802,  when  a  convention  was  concluded  between  the  two  Governments,  and  the  Commis- 
sion reassembled,  and  then  a  question  arose  as  to  the  allowance  of  interest  on  the  claims 
during  the  suspension.  This  the  American  Commissioners  claimed ;  and  though  it  was 
at  first  resisted  by  the  British  Commissioners,  yet  it  was  finally  yielded,  and  interest  was 
allowed  and  paid.  (See  Mr.  King's  three  letters  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  of  twenty-fifth 
of  March,  1803,  twenty-third  of  April,  1803,  and  thirtieth  of  April,  1803,  American  State 
Papers,  Foreign  Relations,  vol.  2,  pages  387  and  388.)  * 

Another  case  in  which  this  principle  was  involved  arose  under  the  treaty  of  the  twenty- 
seventh  of  October,  1795,  with  Spain,  by  the  twenty-first  article  of  which,  "  in  order  to  ter- 


564 

minate  all  differences,  on  account  of  the  losses  sustained  by  citizens  of  the  United  States 
in  consequence  of  their  vessels  and  cargoes  having  been  taken  by  the  subjects  of  his 
Catholic  Majesty  during  the  late  war  between  Spain  and  France,  it  is  agreed  that  all  such 
cases  shall  be  referred  to  the  final  decision  of  Commissioners,  to  be  appointed  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner,"  etc.  The  Commissioners  were  to  be  chosen,  one  by  the  United  States, 
one  by  Spain,  and  the  two  were  to  choose  a  third ;  and  the  award  of  the  Commissioners, 
or  any  two  of  them,  was  to  be  final,  and  the  Spanish  Government  to  pay  the  amount  in 
specie. 

This  Commission  awarded  interest  as  part  of  the  damages.  (See  American  State  Papers, 
vol.  2,  Foreign  Relations,  page  283.)  So  in  the  case  of  claims  of  American  citizens  against 
Brazil,  settled  by  Mr.  Tudor,  United  States  Minister,  interest  was  claimed  and  allowed. 
(See  Ex.  Doc,  first  session  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  House  Reps.,  Doc.  32,  page  249.) 

Again,  in  the  convention  with  Mexico,  of  the  eleventh  of  April,  1839,  by  which  provision 
was  made  by  Mexico  for  the  payment  of  claims  of  American  citizens  for  injuries  to  per- 
sons and  property  by  the  Mexican  authorities,  a  mixed  Commission  was  provided  for, 
and  this  Commission  allowed  interest  in  all  cases.  (House  Ex.  Doc.  291,  Twenty-seventh 
Congress,  second  session.) 

So,  also,  under  the  treaty  with  Mexico  of  February  2, 1848,  the  Board  of  Commissioners 
for  the  adjustment  of  claims  under  that  treaty  allowed  interest  in  all  cases,  from  the 
origin  of  the  claim  until  the  day  when  the  Commission  expired. 

So,  also,  under  the  convention  with  ('olombia,  concluded  February  10,  1864,  the  Com- 
mission for  the  adjudication  of  claims  under  that  treaty  allowed  interest  in  all  cases  as  a 
part  of  the  indemnity. 

So  under  the  recent  convention  with  Venezuela,  the  United  States  exacted  interest 
upon  the  awards  of  the  Commission,  from  the  date  of  the  adjournment  of  the  Commis- 
sion until  the  payment  of  the  awards. 

The  mixed  American  and  Mexican  Commission,  now  in  session  here,  allows  interest  in 
all  cases  from  the  origin  of  the  claim,  and  the  awards  are  payable  with  interest. 

Other  cases  might  be  shown  in  which  the  United  States,  or  their  authorized  diplomatic 
agents,  have  claimed  interest  in  such  cases,  or  where  it  has  been  paid  in  whole  or  in  part. 
(See  Mr.  Russell's  letter  to  the  Count  de  Engstein,  of  October  5,  1818,  American  State 
Papers,  vol.  4,  p.  639,  and  proceedings  under  the  convention  with  the  Two  Sicilies,  of 
October,  1835,  ElKott's  Dip.  Code,  p.  625.) 

It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  pursue  these  precedents  further.  They  sufficiently  and 
clearly  show  the  practice  of  this  Government  with  foreign  nations,  or  with  claimants 
under  treaties. 

8.  The  practice  of  the  United  States  in  its  dealings  with  the  various  Indian  tribes  or 
nations  has  been  in  harmony  with  these  principles. 

In  all  cases  where  money  belonging  to  Indian  nations  has  been  retained  by  the  United 
States,  it  has  been  so  invested  as  to  produce  interest,  for  the  benefit  of  the  nation  to  which 
it  belongs;  and  such  interest  is  annually  paid  to  the  nation  who  may  be  entitled  to 
receive  it. 

9.  The  United  States,  in  adjusting  the  claim  of  the  Cherokee  Nation  for  a  balance  due 
as  purchase  money  upon  lands  ceded  by  that  nation  to  the  United  States  in  1858,  allowed 
interest  upon  the  balance  due  them,  being  $189,422  76,  until  the  same  was  paid. 

The  question  was  submitted  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  as  to  whether  interest 
should  be  allowed  them.  The  Senate  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  in  their  report  upon 
this  subject,  used  the  following  language: 

"  By  the  treaty  of  August,  1846,  it  was  referred  to  the  Senate  to  decide,  and  that  decision 
to  be  final,  whether  the  Cherokees  shall  receive  interest  on  the  sums  found  due  them 
from  a  misapplication  of  their  funds  to  purposes  with  which  they  were  not  chargeable, 
and  on  account  of  which  improper  charges  the  money  has  been  withheld  from  them.  It 
has  been  the  uniform  practice  of  this  Government  to  pay  and  demand  interest  in  all 
transactions  with  foreign  Governments,  which  the  Indian  tribes  have  always  been  said  to 
be,  both  by  the  Supreme  Court  and  all  other  branches  of  our  Government,  in  all  matters 
of  treaty  or  contract.  The  Indians,  relying  upon  the  prompt  payment  of  their  dues,  hnve 
in  many  cases  contracted  debts  upon  the  faith  of  it,  upon  which  they  have  paid,  or  are 
liable  to  pay,  interest.  If,  therefore,  they  do  not  now  receive  interest  "on  their  money,  so 
long  withheld  from  them,  they  will  in  effect  have  received  nothing."  (Senate  Report,  No. 
176,  first  session  Thirty-first  Congress,  p.  78.) 

10.  That  upon  an  examination  of  the  precedents,  where  Congress  has  passed  Acts  for 
the  relief  of  private  citizens,  it  will  be  found  that,  in  almost  every  case,  Congress  has 
directed  the  payment  of  interest,  where  the  United  States  had  withheld  a  sum  of  money 
which  had  been  decided  by  competent  authority  to  be  due,  or  where  the  amount  due  was 
ascertained,  fixed,  and  certain. 

The  following  jjrecedents  illustrate  and  enforce  the  correctness  of  this  assertion,  and 
sustain  this  proposition : 

1.  An  Act  approved  January  14,  1793,  provided  that  lawful  interest  from  the  sixteenth 
of  May,  1776,  shall  be  allowed  on  the  sum  of  $200,  ordered  to  be  paid  to  Return  J.  Meigs, 
and  the  legal  representatives  of  Christopher  Greene,  deceased,  by  a  resolve  of  the  United 
States,  in  Congress  assembled,  on  the  twenty-eighth  of  September,  1785.  (6  Stats,  at  Large, 
p.  11.) 

2.  An  Act  approved  May  31,  1794,  providing  for  a  settlement  with  Arthur  St.  Clair,  for 
expenses  while  going  from  New  York  to  Fort  Pitt,  and  till  his  return,  and  for  services  in 


565 

the  business  of  Indian  treaties,  and  "allowed  interest  on  the  balance  found  to  be  due 
him."    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  46.) 

3.  An  Act  approved  February  27,  1795,  authorized  the  officers  of  the  Treasury  to  issue 
and  deliver  to  Angus  McLean,  or  his  duly  authorized  attorney,  certificates  for  the  amount 
of  $254  43,  bearing  interest  at  six  per  cent,  from  the  first  of  July,  1783,  being  for  his  services 
in  the  Corps  of  Sappers  and  Miners  during  the  late  war.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  20.) 

4.  An  Act  approved  January  23,  1798,  directing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay 
General  Kosciusco  an  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent  per  annum  on  the  sum  of  $12,- 
280  54,  the  amount  of  a  certificate  due  to  him  from  the  United  States  from  the  first  of 
January,  1793,  to  the  thirty-first  of  December,  1797.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  32.) 

5.  An  Act  approved  May  3,  1802,  provided  that  there  be  paid  Fulwar  Skipwith  the  sum 
of  $4,550,  advanced  by  hini  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  six 
per  cent  per  annum  from  the  first  of  November,  1795,  at  which  time  the  advance  was 
made.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  48.) 

6.  An  Act  for  the  relief  of  John  Coles,  approved  January  14,  1804,  authorized  the  proper 
accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  to  liquidate  the  claim  of  John  Coles,  owner  of  the  ship 
Grand  Turk,  heretofore  employed  in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  for  the  detention  of 
said  ship  at  Gibraltar  from  the  tenth  of  May  to  the  fourth  of  July,  1801,  inclusive,  and 
that  he  be  allowed  demurrage  at  the  rate  stipulated  in  the  charter-party,  together  with 
the  interest  thereon.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  50.) 

7.  An  Act  approved  March  3,  1807,  provided  for  a  settlement  of  the  accounts  of  Oliver 
Pollock,  formerl)'^  commercial  agent  for  the  United  States  at  New  Orleans,  allowing  him 
certain  sums  and  commissions,  with  interest  until  paid;    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  65.) 

8.  An  Act  for  the  relief  of  Stephen  Sayre,  approved  March  3, 1807,  provided  that  the 
accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  be  authorized  to  settle  the  accounts  of  Stephen  Sayre, 
as  Secretary  of  Legation  at  the  Court  of  Berlin,  in  the  year  1777,  with  interest  on  the 
whole  sum  until  paid.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  65.) 

9.  An  Act  approved  April  25,  1810,  directed  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  to 
settle  the  account  of  Moses  Young,  as  Secretary  of  Legation  to  Holland  in  1780,  and  pro- 
viding that  after  the  deduction  of  certain  moneys  paid  him,  the  balance,  with  interest 
thereon,  should  be  paid.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  p.  89.) 

10.  An  Act  approved  May  1,  1810,  for  the  relief  of  P.  C.  L'Enfant,  directed  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  to  pay  to  him  the  sum  of  $606,  with  legal  interest  thereon  from  March  i, 
1792,  as  a  compensation  for  his  services  in  laying  out  the  plan  of  the  city  of  Washington. 
(6  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  92  ) 

11.  An  Act  approved  January  10,  1812,  provided  that  there  be  paid  to  John  Burnham, 
the  sum  of  $126  72,  and  the  interest  on  the  same  since  the  thirtieth  of  May,  1796,  which, 
in  addition  to  the  sum  allowed  him  by  the  Act  of  that  date,  is  to  be  considered  a  reim- 
bursement of  the  money  advanced  by  him  for  his  ransom  from  captivity  in  Algiers.  (6 
Stat,  at  L.,  p.  101.) 

12.  An  Act  api)roved  July  1,  1812,  for  the  relief  of  Anna  Young,  required  the  War 
Department  to  settle  the  account  of  Col.  John  Durkee,  deceased,  and  to  allow  said  Anna 
Young,  his  sole  heiress  and  representative,  said  seven  vears'  half-paj'^,  and  interest 
thereon.    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  110.) 

13.  An  Act  approved  February  25,  1813,  provided  that  there  be  paid  to  John  Dixon  the 
sum  of  $329  84,  with  six  percent  per  annum  interest  thereon  from  the  first  of  January,  1785, 
"being  the  amount  of  a  final-settlement  certificate.  No.  596,  issued  by  Andrew  Dunscomb, 
late  Commissioner  of  Accounts  for  the  State  of  Virginia,  on  the  twenty-second  of 
December,  1786,  to  Lucy  Dixon,  who  transferred  the  same  to  John  Dixon."  (6  Stat,  at  L., 
p.  117.) 

14.  An  Act  approved  February  25,  1813,  required  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treas- 
ury to  settle  the  account  of  John  Murray,  representative  of  Dr.  Henry  Murray,  and  that 
he' be  allowed  the  amount  of  three  loan-certificates  for  $1,000,  with  interest  from  the 
twentj'^-ninth  of  March,  1782,  issued  in  the  name  of  said  Murray,  signed  Francis  Hop- 
kinson.  Treasurer  of  Loans.    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  117.) 

15.  An  Act  approved  March  3,  1813,  directed  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  to 
settle  the  accounts  of  Samuel  Lapsley,  deceased,  and  that  they  be  allowed  the  amount  of 
two  final-settlement  certificates.  No.  78446,  for  one  thousand  dollars,  and  No.  78447,  for 
one  thousand  three  hundred  dollars,  and  interest  from  the  twenty-second  day  of  March, 
1783,  issued  in  the  name  of  Samuel  Lapslev,  by  the  Commissioner  of  Army  Accounts  for 
the  United  States  on  the  first  day  of  July,"^1784.    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  119.) 

16.  An  Act  approved  April  13,  1814,  directed  the  officers  of  the  Treasury  to  settle  the 
account  of  Joseph  Brevard,  and  that  he  be  allowed  the  amount  of  a  final-settlement  cer- 
tificate for  $183  23,  dated  February  1,  1785,  and  bearing  interest  from  the  first  of  January, 
1783,  issued  to  said  Brevard  by  John  Pierce,  Commissioner  for  Settling  Army  Accounts. 
(6  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  134.) 

17.  An  Act  approved  April  18,  1814,  directed  the  Receiver  of  Public  Moneys  at  Cincin- 
nati to  pay  the  full  amount  of  moneys,  with  interest,  paid  by  Dennis  Clark,  in  discharge 
of  the  purchase  money  for  a  certain  fractional  section  of  land  purchased  by  said  Clark. 
(6  Stat,  at  L.,  141.) 

18.  An  Act  for  the  relief  of  William  Arnold,  approved  February  2,  1815,  allowed 
interest  on  the  sum  of  six  hundred  dollars  due  him  from  January  1,  1783.  (6  Stat,  at 
L.,  146.) 

19.  An  Act  approved  April  26,  1816,  directing  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury 
to  pay  to  Joseph  Wheaton  the  sum  of  eight  hundred  and  thirty-six  dollars  and  forty-two 


566 

cents,  on  account  of  interest  due  him  from  the  United  States  upon  sixteen  hundred  dol- 
lars and  eighty-four  cents,  from  April  1,  1807,  to  December  21,  1815,  pursuant  to  the 
award  of  George  Youngs  and  Elias  B.  Caldwell,  in  a  controversy  between  the  United 
States  and  the  said  Joseph  Wheaton.    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  166.) 

20.  An  Act  approved  April  26,  1816,  authorized  the  liquidation  and  settlement  of  the 
claim  of  the  heirs  of  Alexander  Roxburgh,  arising  on  a  final-settlement  certificate  issued 
on  the  eighteenth  of  August,  1878,  for  $480  87,  by  John  Pierce,  Commissioner  for  Settling- 
Army  Accounts,  bearing  interest  from  the  first  of  January,  1782.    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  167.) 

21.  An  Act  approved  April  14,  1818,  authorized  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury 
Department  "  to  review  the  settlement  of  the  account  of  John  Thompson,"  made  under 
the  authority  of  an  Act  approved  the  eleventh  of  May,  1812,  and  "  to  allow  the  said  John 
Thompson  interest  at  six  per  cent  per  annum,  from  the  fourth  of  March,  1787,  to  the 
twentieth  of  May,  1812.  on  the  sum  which  was  found  due  to  him,  and  paid  under  the  Act 
aforesaid."    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  208.) 

22.  An  Act  approved  May  11,  1820,  directed  the  proper  officers  of  the  Treasury  to  pay 
to  Samuel  B.  Beall  the  amount  of  two  final-settlement  certificates  issued  to  him  on  the 
first  of  February,  1785,  for  his  services  as  a  Lieutenant  in  the  army  of  the  United  States 
during  the  revolutionary  war,  together  with  interest  on  the  said  certificates  at  the  rate 
of  six  per  cent  per  annlim,  from  the  time  they  bore  interest,  respectively,  which  said 
certificates  were  lost  by  the  said  Beall,  and  remain  vet  outstanding  and  unpaid.  (6  Laws 
of  U.  S.,  510;  6  Stat,  at  L.,  249.) 

23.  An  Act  approved  May  15,  1820,  required  that  there  be  paid  to  Thomas  Leiper  the 
specie  value  of  four  loan-office  certificates,  issued  to  him  by  the  Commissioner  of  Loans 
for  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  on  the  twenty-seventh  of  February,  1779,  for  one  thou- 
sand dollars  each;  and  also  the  specie  value  of  two  loan-certificates,  issued  to  him  by 
the  said  Commissioner  on  the  second  day  of  March,  1779.  for  one  thousand  dollars  each,, 
with  interest  at  six  per  cent  annually.    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  252.) 

24.  An  Act  approved  May  7,  1822,  provided  that  there  be  paid  to  the  legal  representa- 
tives of  John  Guthry,  deceased,  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-three  dollars  and 
thirty  cents,  being  the  amount  of  a  final-settlement  certificate,  with  interest  at  the  rate 
of  six  per  cent  per  annum  from  the  first  day  of  January,  1788.    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  269.) 

25.  An  Act  for  the  relief  of  the  legal  representatives  of  James  McClung,  approved 
March  3, 1823,  allowed  interest  on  the  amount  due  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent  per  annum 
from  January  1,  1788.    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  284.) 

26.  An  Act  approved  March  3,  1823,  for  the  relief  of  Daniel  Seward,  allowed  interest  to 
him  for  money  paid  to  the  United  States  for  land  to  w^hich  the  title  failed,  at  the  rate  of 
six  per  cent  per  annum  from  January  29,  1814.    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  286.) 

27.  An  Act  approved  May  5,  1824,  directed  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  to 
Amasa  Stetson,  the  sum  of  six  thousand  two  hundred  and  fifteen  dollars,  "  being  for 
interest  on  moneys  advanced  by  him  for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  and  on  warrants 
issued  in  his  favor,  in  the  years  1814  and  1815,  for  his  services  in  the  Ordnance  and  ic^uar- 
termaster's  Department  for  superintending  the  making  of  army  clothing  and  for  issuing 
the  public  supplies."    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  298.) 

28.  An  Act  approved  March  3,  1824,  directing  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the 
Treasury  to  settle  and  adjust  the  claim  of  Stephen  Arnold,  David  and  George  Jenks,  for 
the  manufacture  of  three  thousand  nine  hundred  and  twenty-five  muskets,  with  interest 
thereon  from  the  twenty-sixth  day  of  October,  1813.    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  331.) 

29.  An  Act  approved  May  20,  1826,  directed  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treas- 
ury to  settle  and  adjust  the  claim  of  John  Stemman  and  others  for  the  manufacture  of 
four  thousand  one  hundred  stand  of  arms,  and  to  allow  interest  on  the  amount  due  from 
October  26.  1813.    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  345.) 

30.  An  Act  approved  May  20,  1826,  for  the  relief  of  Ann  D.  Taylor,  directed  the  payment 
to  her  of  the  sum  of  three  hundred  and  fifty-four  dollars  and  fifteen  cents,  with  interest 
thereon,  at  a  rate  of  six  per  cent  per  annum  from  December  30,  1786,  until  paid.  (6  Stat, 
at  L.,  351.) 

31.  An  Act  approved  March  3, 1827,  provided  that  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the 
Treasury  were  authorized  to  pay  B.  J.  V.  Valkenburg,  the  sum  of  five  hundred  and 
ninety-seven  dollars  and  twenty-four  cents,  "being  the  amount  of  fourteen  indents  of 
interest,  with  interest  thereon"^  from  the  first  of  January,  1791,  to  the  thirty-first  of 
December,  1826."    (6  Stat,  at  L.,  365.) 

In  this  case  the  United  States  paid  interest  on  interest. 

32.  An  Act  approved  May  29,  1828,  provided  that  there  be  paid  to  the  legal  representa- 
tives of  Patience  Gordon  the  specie  value  of  a  certificate  issued  in  the  name  of  Patience 
Gordon  by  the  Commissioner  of  Loans  for  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  on  the  seventh  of 
April,  1778,  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent  per  annum  from  the  first  day  of 
January,  1788.    (7  Stat,  at  L.,  p.  378.) 

33.  An  Act  approved  May  29,  1830,  required  the  Treasury  Department  "to  settle  the 
accounts  of  Benjamin  Wells,  as  Deputy  Commissary  of  Issues  at  the  Magazine  at  Mon- 
ster Mill  in  Pennsylvania,  under  John  Irvin,  Deputy  Commissary-General  of  the  Army 
of  the  United  States  in  said  State  in  the  revolutionary  war;"  and  that  "they  credit  him 
with  the  sum  of  five  hundred  and  seventy-four  dollars  and  four  cents,  as  payable  Febru- 
ary 9,  1779,  and  three  hundred  and  twenty-six  dollars  and  sixty-seven  cents,  payable  July 
20, 1780,  in  the  same  manner  and  with  such  interest,  as  if  these  sums,  with  their  interest 
from  the  times  respectively  aforesaid  had  been  subscribed  to  the  loan  of  the  United 
States."    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  447.) 


567 

34.  An  Act  approved  May  19,  1832,  for  the  relief  of  Kichard  G.  Morris,  provided  for  the 
payment  to  him  of  two  certificates  issued  to  him  by  Timothy  Pickering,  Quartermaster- 

,  General,  with  interest  thereon  from  the  first  of  September,  1781.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  486.) 

35.  An  Act  approved  July  4,  1832,  for  the  relief  of  Aaron  Snow,  a  revolutionary  soldier, 
provided  for  the  payment  to  him  of  two  certificates  issued  by  John  Pierce,  late  Commis- 
sioner of  Army  Accounts,  and  dated  in  1784,  with  interest  thereon.  (6  Stats,  at  Large, 
503.) 

36.  An  Act  approved  July  4, 1832,  provided  for  the  payment  to  W.  P.  Gibbs  of  a  final- 
settlement  certificate  dated  January  30, 1784,  with  interest  at  six  per  cent  from  the  first  of 
January,  1783,  up  to  the  passage  of  the  Act.  This  Act  went  behind  the  final  certificate 
and  provided  for  the  payment  of  interest  anterior  to  its  date.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  504.) 

37.  An  Act  approved  July  14,  1832,  directed  the  payment  to  the  heirs  of  Ebenezer  L. 
Warren  of  certain  sums  of  money  illegally  demanded  and  received  by  the  United 
States  from  the  said  Warren  as  one  of  the  sureties  of  Daniel  Evans,  former  Collector  of 
Direct  Taxes,  with  interest  thereon  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent  per  annum  from  Septem- 
ber 9,  1820.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  373.) 

38.  An  Act  for  the  relief  of  Hartwell  Vick,  approved  July  14, 1832,  directed  the  account- 
ing officers  of  the  Treasury  to  refund  to  the  said  Vick  the  money  paid  by  him  to  the 
United  States  for  a  certain  tract  of  land  which  was  found  nof  to  be  x^roperty  of  the 
United  States,  with  interest  thereon  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum  from  the 
twenty-third  day  of  May,  1818.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  523.) 

39.  An  Act  approved  June  18, 1834,  for  the  relief  of  Martha  Bailey  and  others,  directed 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  to  the  parties  therein  named  the  sum  of  four 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-seven  dollars  and  sixty-one  cents,  being  the  amount 
of  interest  upon  the  sum  of  two  hundred  thousand  dollars,  part  of  a  balance  due  from 
the  United  States  to  Elbert  Anderson  on  the  twenty-sixth  day  of  October,  1814 ;  also  the 
further  sum  of  nine  thousand  five  hundred  and  ninety-five  dollars  and  thirty-six  cents, 
being  the  amount  of  interest  accruing  from  the  deferred  payment  of  warrants  issued  for 
balances  due  from  the  United  States  to  said  Anderson  from  the  date  of  such  warrants 
until  the  payment  thereof;  also  the  further  sum  of  two  thousand  and  eighteen  dollars 
and  fifty  cents  admitted  to  be  due  from  the  United  States  to  the  said  Anderson  by  a 
decision  of  the  Second  Comptroller,  with  interest  on  the  sum  last  mentioned  from  the 
period  of  such  decision  until  paid.    (6  ^tats.  at  Large,  562.) 

40.  An  Act  approved  June  10,  1834,  directed  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  bal- 
ance of  damages  recovered  against  William  C.  H.  Waddell,  United  States  Marshal  for 
the  southern  district  of  New  York,  for  the  illegal  seizure  of  a  certain  importation  of 
brandy  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  with  legal  interest  on  the  amount  of  said  judg- 
ment from  the  time  the  same  was  paid  by  the  said  Waddell.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  594.) 

41.  An  Act  approved  February  17,  1836,  directed  the  payment  of  the  sum  therein  named 
to  Marinus  W.  Gilbert,  being  the  interest  on  money  advanced  by  him  to  pay  off  troops  in 
the  service  of  the  United  States,  and  not  repaid  when  demanded,  •(e  Stats,  at  Large, 622.) 

42.  An  Act  approved  February  17,  1836,  for  the  relief  of  the  executor  of  Charles  Wil- 
kins,  directed  the  Secretary  of  'the  Treasury  to  settle  the  claim  of  the  said  executor, 
for  interest  on  a  liquidated  demand  in  favor  of  Jonathan  Taylor,  James  Morrison, 
and  Charles  Wilkins,  who  were  lessees  of  the  United  States  of  the  salt  works  in  the 
State  of  Illinois.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  626.) 

43.  An  Act  approved  July  2,  1836,  for  the  relief  of  the  legal  representatives  of  David 
Caldwell,  directed  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  to  settle  the  claim  of  the 
said  David  Caldwell  for  fees  and  allowances,  certified  by  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  eastern  district  of  Pennsylvania,  for  official  services  to  the  United  States, 
and  to  pay  on  that  account  the  sum  of  four  hundred  and  ninety-six  dollars  and  thirty- 
eight  cent's,  with  interest  thereon  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  from  the  twenty-fifth  day 
of  November,  1830,  till  paid.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  664.) 

44.  An  Act  approved  J  uly  2,  1836,  provided  that  there  be  paid  Don  Carlos  Delossus 
interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum  on  three  hundred  and  thirty-three  dol- 
lars, being  the  amount  allowed  him  under  the  Act  of  July  14,  1832,  for  his  relief,  on 
account  of  moneys  taken  from  him  at  the  capture  of  Baton  Rouge,  La.,  on  the  twenty- 
third  day  of  September,  1810,  being  the  interest  to  be  allowed  from  the  said  twenty-third 
day  of  September,  1810,  to  the  fourteenth  day  of  July,  1832.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  672.) 

In  this  case  the  interest  was  directed  to  be  paid  four  years  after  the  principal  had  been 
satisfied  and  discharged. 

45.  An  Act  approved  July  7,  1838,  provided  that  the  proper  officers  of  the  Treasury  be 
directed  to  settle  the  accounts  of  Richard  Harrison,  formerly  Consular  Agent  of  the 
United  States  at  Cadiz,  in  Spain,  and  allow  him,  among  other  items,  the  interest  on 
the  money  advanced,  under  agreement  with  the  Minister  of  the  United  States,  in  Spain, 
for  the  relief  of  destitute  and  distressed  seamen,  and  for  their  passages  to  the  United 
States,  from  the  time  the  advances,  respectively,  were  made  to  the  time  at  which  the  said 
advances  were  reimbursed.    (6  Stats,  at  Large,  734.) 

46.  An  Act  approved  August  11,  1842,  directed  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  to 
John  Johnson  the  sum  of  seven  hundred  and  fifty-six  dollars' and  eighty-two  cents,  being 
the  amount  received  from  the  said  Johnson  upon  a  judgment  against  him  in  favor  of  the 
United  States,  together  with  the  interest  thereon  from  the  time  of  such  payment.  (6 
Stats,  at  Large,  856.) 

47.  An  Act  approved  August  3,  1846,  authorized  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  to 
Abraham  Horbach  the  sum  of  five  thousand  dollars,  with  lawful  interest  from  the  first  of 


568 

January,  1836,  being  the  amount  of  a  draft  drawn  by  James  Reeside  on  the  Post  Office 
Department,  dated  April  18,  1835,  payable  on  the  first  of  Januar}^  1836,  and  accepted  by 
the  Treasurer  of  the  Post  Office  Department,  which  said  draft  was  indorsed  by  said  Abra-* 
ham  Horbach,  at  the  instance  of  the  said  Reeside,  and  the  amount  drawn  from  the  Bank 
of  Philadelphia,  and,  at  maturity,  said  draft  was  protested  for  non-payment,  and  said 
Horbach  became  liable  to  pay,  and,  in  consequence  of  his  indorsement,  did  pay  the  full 
amount  of  said  draft.    (9  Stats,  at  Large,  677.) 

48.  An  Act  approved  February  5, 1859,  authorized  the  Secretary  of  War  to  pay  to  Thomas 
Laurent,  as  surviving  partner,  the  sum  of  fifteen  thousand  dollars,  with  interest  at  the  rate 
of  six  per  cent  yearly,  from  the  eleventh  of  November,  1847,  it  being  the  amount  paid  by 
the  firm  on  that  day' to  Major-General  Winfield  Scott,  in  the  City  of  Mexico,  for  the  pur- 
chase of  a  house  in  said  city,  out  of  the  possession  of  which  they  were  since  ousted  by 
the  Mexican  autlforities.    (11  Stats,  at  Large,  558.) 

49.  An  Act  approved  March  2,  1847,  directed  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  the 
balance  due  to  the  Bank  of  Metropolis  for  moneys  due  upon  the  settlement  of  the  account 
of  the  bank  with  the  United  States,  with  interest  thereon  from  the  sixth  day  of  March, 
1838.    (9  Stats,  at  Large,  689.) 

50.  An  Act  approved  Jvily  20,  1852,  directed  the  payment  to  the  legal  representative  of 
James  C.  Watson,  late  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  the  sum  of  fourteen  thousand  six  hundred 
dollars,  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent  per  annum,  from  the  eighth  day  of  May, 
1838,  till  paid,  being  the  amount  paid  by  him,  under  the  sanction  of  the  Indian  Agent,  to 
certain  Creek  warriors,  for  slaves  captured  by  said  warriors  while  they  were  in  the  service 
of  the  United  States  against  the  Seminole  Indians  in  Florida.    (10  Stats,  at  Large,  734.) 

51.  An  Act  approved  July  29,  1854,  directed  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  to  John 
C.  Fremont  one  hundred  and  eighty-three  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty-five  dol- 
lars, with  interest  thereon  from  the  first  day  of  June,  1851,  at  the  rate  of  ten  per  cent 
per  annum,  in  full  for  his  account  for  beef  delivered  to  Commissioner  Barbour,  for  the  use 
of  the  Indians  in  California,  in  1851  and  1852.    (10  Stats,  at  Large,  804.) 

52.  An  Act  approved  July  8,  1870,  directed  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  make  proper 
payments  to  carry  into  effect  the  decree  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
District  of  Louisiana,  bearing  date  the  fourth  of  June,  1867,  in  the  case  of  the  British  brig 
•'  Volan,"  and  her  cargo;  and  also  another  decree  of  the  same  Court,  bearing  date  the 
eleventh  of  June,  in  the  same  year,  in  the  case  of  the  British  bark  "  Science "  and  cargo, 
vessels  illegally  seized  by  a  cruiser  of  the  United  States,  such  payments  to  be  made  as  fol- 
lows, viz.:  To  the  several  persons  named  in  such  decrees,  or  tfieir  legal  representatives, 
the  several  sums  awarded  to  them  respectively,  with  interest  to  each  person  from  the  date  of 
the  decree  under  which  he  receives  payment.    (16  Stats,  at  Large,  650.) 

53.  An  Act  approved  July  8, 1870,  directed  the  Secretary  to  make  the  proper  payments  to 
carry  into  effect  the  decree  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  District  of 
Louisiana,  bearing  date  July  13,  1867,  in  the  case  of  the  British  brig  "  Dashing  Wave,"  and 
her  cargo,  illegally  seized  by  a  cruiser  of  the  United  States,  which  decree  was  made  in 
pursuance  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  such  payments  to  be  made  with  interest  from 
the  date  of  the  decree.    (16  Stats,  at  Large,  651.) 

An  examination  of  these  cases  will  show  that  subsequent  to  the  seizure  of  these  several 
vessels,  they  were  each  sold  by  the  United  States  Marshal  for  the  District  of  Louisiana  as 
prize,  and  the  proceeds  of  such  sales  deposited  by  him  in  the  First  National  Bank  of  New 
Orleans.  The  bank,  while  the  proceeds  of  these  sale  were  on  deposit  there,  became  insol- 
vent. The  seizures  were  held  illegal,  and  the  vessels  not  subject  to  capture  as  prize.  But 
the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  these  vessels,  and  their  cargoes,  could  not  be  restored  to  the 
owners  in  accordance  of  the  decrees  of  the  District  Court,  because  the  funds  had  been 
lost  by  the  insolvency  of  the  bank.  In  these  cases,  therefore.  Congress  provided  indem- 
nity for  losses  resulting  from  the  acts  of  its  agents,  and  made  the  indemnity  complete  by 
providing  for  the  payment  of  interest. 

Your  committee  have  directed  attention  to  these  numerous  precedents  for  the  purpose 
of  exposing  the  utter  want  of  foundation  of  the  often  repeated  assumption  that  "  the  Gov- 
ernment never  pays  interest."  It  will  readily  be  admitted  that  there  is  no  statute  law  to 
sustain  this  position.  The  idea  has  grown  up  from  the  custom  and  usage  of  the  account- 
ing officers  and  Departments  refusing  to  allow  interest  generally  in  their  accounts  with 
disbursing  officers,  and  in  the  settlement  of  unliquidated  domestic  claims  arising  out  of 
dealings  with  the  Government.  It  will  hardly  be  pretended,  however,  that  this  custom  or 
usage  is  so  "reasonable,"  well-known,  and  "certain,"  as  to  give  it  the  force  and  efltect  of 
law,  and  to  override  and  tram^^le  under  foot  the  law  of  nations  and  also  the  well  settled 
practice  of  the  Government  itself  in  its  intercourse  with  other  nations. 

11th.  Interest  was  allowed  and  paid  to  the  State  of  Massachusetts  because  the  United 
States  delayed  the  payment  of  the  principal  for  twenty-two  years  after  the  amount  due 
had  been  ascertained  and  determined.  The  amount  appropriated  to  pay  this  interest  was 
$678,362  41,  more  than  the  original  principal.    (16  Stats,  at  Large.  198.) 

Mr.  Sumner,  in  his  report  upon  the  memorial  introduced  for  that  purpose,  discussing 
this  question  of  interest,  said: 

"It  is  urged  that  the  payment  of  this  interest  would  establish  a  bad  precedent.  If  the 
claim  is  just,  the  precedent  of  paying  it  is  one  of  which  our  Government  should  wish  to 
establish.  Honesty  and  justice  iire  not  precedents  of  which  either  Government  or  indi- 
viduals should  be  Jifraid."    (Senate  Report  4,  Forty-first  Congress,  first  session,  p.  10.) 

12th.  Interest  has  always  been  allowed  to  the  several  States  for  advances  made  to  the 
United  States  for  military  purposes. 


569 

The  claims  of  the  several  States  for  advances  during  the  revolutionary  war  were 
adjusted  aud  settled  under  the  provision  of  the  Acts  of  Congress  of  August  5,"  1790,  and  of 
May  31,  1794.  By  these  Acts  interest  was  allowed  to  the  States,  whether  they  had  advanced 
money  on  hand  in  their  treasuries  or  obtained  by  loans. 

In  respect  to  the  advances  of  States  during  the  war  of  1812-15,  a  more  restricted  rule 
was  adopted,  viz.:  That  States  should  be  allowed  interest  only  so  far  as  they  had  them- 
selves paid  it  by  borrowing,  or  had  lost  it  by  the  sale  of  interest-bearing  funds. 

Interest,  according  to  this  rule,  has  been  paid  to  all  the  States  which  made  advances 
during  the  war  of  1812-15,  with  the  exception  of  Massachusetts.    Here  are  the  cases: 

Virginia,  U.  S.  Stats,  at  Large,  vol.  4,  p.  161. 

I^elaware,  U.  S.  Stats,  at  Large,  vol.  4,  p.  175. 

New  York,  U.  S.  Stats,  at  Large,  vol.  4,  p.  192. 

Pennsylvania,  U.  S.  Stats,  at  Large,  vol.  4,  p.  241. 

South  Carolina,  U.  S.  Stats,  at  Large,  vol.  4.  p.  499. 

In  Indian  and  other  wars  the  same  rule  has  been  observed,  as  in  the  following  cases: 

Alabama,  U.  S.  Stats,  at  Large,  vol.  9,  p.  344. 

Georgia,  U.  S.  Stats,  at  liarge,  vol.  9,  p.  626. 

Washington  Territory,  U.  S.  Stats,  at  Large,  vol.  11,  p.  429. 

New  Hampshire,  U.  S.  Stats,  at  Large,  vol.  10,  p.  1. 

13th.  The  Senate  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  in  the  report  to  which  reference  has 
heretofore  been  made,  speaking  of  this  award  and  of  the  obligation  of  the  United  States 
to  pay  interest  upon  the  balance  remaining  due  and  unpaid  thereon,  used  the  following 
language: 

"Your  committee  are  of  opinion  that  this  sum  should  be  paid  them  with  accrued  inter- 
est from  the  date  of  said  award,  deducting  therefrom  $250,000,  paid  to  them  in  money,  as 
directed  by  the  Act  of  March  2,  1861 ;  and,  therefore,  find  no  sufficient  reason  for  further 
delay  in  carrying  into  effect  that  provision  of  the  aforenamed  Act,  and  the  Act  of  March 
3,  1871,  by  the  delivery  of  the  bonds  therein  described,  with  accrued  interest  from  the  date 
of  the  Act  of  March  8,  1861. 

"  Your  committee  have  discussed  this  question  with  an  anxious  desire  to  come  to  such  a 
conclusion  in  regard  to  it  as  would  do  no  injustice  to  that  Indian  nation  whose  rights  are 
involved  here,  nor  establish  such  a  precedent  as  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  practice 
or  duty  of  the  United  States  in  such  cases.  Therefore,  your  committee  have  considered  it 
not  only  by  the  light  of  those  principles  of  the  public  law — always  in  harmony  with  the 
highest  demands  of  the  most  i>erfect  justice — but  also  in  the  light  of  those  numerous  pre- 
cedents which  this  Government  in  its  action  in  litigation  has  furnished  for  our  guidance. 
Your  committee  cannot  believe  that  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  moneys  awarded  by 
the  Senate  to  the  Choctaw  Nation  would  either  violate  any  principle  of  law  or  establish 
any  precedent  which  the  United  States  would  not  wish  to  follow  in  any  similar  case,  and 
your  committee  cannot  believe  that  the  United  States  are  prepared  to  repudiate  these 
principles,  or  to  admit  that  because  their  obligation  is  held  by  a  weak  and  powerless  Indian 
nation  it  is  any  the  less  sacred  or  binding  than  if  held  by  a  nation  able  to  enforce  its  pay- 
ment and  secure  complete' indemnity  under  it.  Could  the  United  States  escape  the  pay- 
ment of  interest  to  Great  Britain,  if  it  should  refuse  or  neglect,  after  the  same  became  due, 
to  pay  the  amount  awarded  in  favor  of  British  subjects  by  the  recent  joint  commission 
which  sat  here?  Could  we  delay  payment  of  the  amount  awarded  by  that  commission 
for  fifteen  years,  and  then  escape  by  merely  paying  the  principal  ?  The  Choctaw  Nation 
asks  the  same  measure  of  justice  which  we  must  accord  to  Great  Britain;  and  your  com- 
mittee cannot  deny  that  demand  unless  they  shall  ignore  and  set  aside  those  principles  of 
the  public  law  which  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  United  States  to  always  main- 
tain inviolate. 

"  Your  committee  are  not  unmindful  that  the  amount  due  the  Choctaw  Nation  under  the 
award  of  the  Senate  is  large.  They  are  not  unmindful,  either,  that  the  discredit  of  refusing 
payment  is  increased  in  proportion  to  the  amount  withheld  and  the  time  during  which 
refusal  has  been  continued." 

Few,  if  any,  of  the  foregoing  cases  presented  as  strong  and  meritorious  grounds  for 
the  allowance  of  interest  as  the  claim  now  under  consideration.  Following  these  prece- 
dents, and  for  the  reasons  above  set  forth,  the  committee  deem  the  present  a  proper  case 
for  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  sum  converted  ($371,025)  from  date  of  conversion  to 
date  of  payment.  This  interest  they  fix  at  the  rate  of  four  and  a  half  (4^)  per  centum  per 
annum,  that  being  about  the  average  rate  paid  by  the  Government  between  1867  and  1881, 
and  which  it  may  be  fairly  assumed  was  saved  or  made  by  it  for  the  use  of  the  funds  dur- 
ing the  period  of  detention.  On  this  basis  the  interest  allowed  will  amount  to  the  sum  of 
$249,039  95. 

The  committee  accordingly  recommend  that  the  bill  be  amended  as  follows:  In  line 
one  of  Section  2  strike  out  the  words  "seventy-five"  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  "forty- 
nine,"  and  in  line  second  of  said  section  after  the  word  "thousand,"  insert  the  words 
"and  thirty-nine  and  ninety-five  hundredths."  And  as  thus  amended  that  the  bill  be 
passed  by  the  Senate. 


570 

In  addition  to  the  precedents  cited  in  the  foregoing  Senate  report,  the 
committee  refer  to  the  following  cases  in  which  interest  has  been  allowed 
by  Act  of  Congress  or  paid  by  the  Treasury  Department : 


Date  of  Act. 


Baron  de  Glaubeck September  29,  1789 

Captain  Markley August  11,  1790    . . 

Lieutenant  Brewster August  11,  1790 

John  Stevens i  August  11,  1790  — 

James  Derry i  August  11,  1790 

Benjamin  Hardison 1  August  11,  1790 


Widow  of  General  Lord  Stirling 

Child  of  Colonel  Laurens 

Oliver  Pollock 

Widow  of  Colonel  Roberts 

Widow  of  Captain  White 

Widow  of  Colonel  Elliott 

Widow  of  Major  Wise - 

Widow  of  Major  Huger  _ 

Widow  of  Lieutenant  Bush 

Widow  of  Major  Motte 

Captain  Mclntire 

Colonel  Pannil 

General  De  Hass 

Dr.  Debevere 

Lieutenant  King 

Sailingmaster  Sherman 

General  Nathanael  Greene 

Colonel  Dubois 

Moses  White 

Widow  of  Thomas  Flinn 

De  Beaumarchais 

Thomas  Barclay - 

Mary  Rappley ea 

John  Plolkar 

Joshua  Barney 

Nicholas  Vreeland 

John  Crute 

Walter  S.  Chandler 

John  Crain -.. 

Heirs  of  John  W.  Baylor  and  others 

Robert  Johnson 

Benjamin  Wells 


1792 
1792 
1792 


August  11,  1790  ... 
August  11,  1790  ... 
December  23,  1791. 
March  27,  1792.... 
March  27,  1792.-. 
March  27, 1792.... 
March  27.  1792.-.. 
March  27,  1792.... 
March  27,  1792.... 
March  27,  1792.... 
March  27, 
March  27, 
March  27, 
March  27,  1792.. 
March  27,  1792.. 
March  27,  1792.. 
April27,  1792  ... 

June  4,  1794 

March  2,  1803... 
March  3,  1805.-. 
Ai)rill8,  1806  ... 
April  18,  1808  . . . 
February  2.  1815 
April  29,  1816  ... 
March  2,  1849  ... 
April  5,  1820  .... 

May  7,  1822 

March  3,  1825... 
March3,  1825... 
May  20,  1826  .... 
May  26,  1828  .... 
.May  29, 1830  .... 


A.  D.Baylor j  May  29,  1830 


Charles  Yates'  executor 

Ward  &  Brothers 

Lucian  Harper 

Heirs  of  General  Hazen  ... 

Lieutenant  Vawtes 

Major  Roberts 

Lieutenant  Hillary 

Dr.  Carter 

Colonel  Baylor 

Lieutenant  Brooke 

Ichabod  Ward 

Dr.  Axson 

Dr.  Knight.... 

John  B.  Taylor 

J  &  J.  Pettigrew.-- 

A.  McKnight 

Heirs  of  Colonel  Harrison. 

Lieutenant  J  acob 

The  Union  Bank  of  Florida 

William  Greer... 

Gray,  McMurdo  &  Co 

John  S.  Wilson 

Charles  Cooper  &  Co 

James  Dunning 


May  29,  1830  .... 
May  31,  1830  .... 
March  2,  1831... 
March  3,  1831... 
May  25,  1832  .... 
May  25,  1832.... 
May  25,  1832  .... 
May  25,  1832  .... 
May  25,  1832  .... 
May  25, 1832  .... 
June  15,  1832.--. 
June  15,  1832.... 
June  15,  1832.... 
July  13,1832  .... 
July  14,1832  .... 
July  14;  1832  .... 
July  14,1832-... 
July  14,  1832..... 
March  3,  1849... 
May  26,  1852  .... 
March  27,  1854  .. 
July  27.  1854  .... 
Juliy^27,  1845  .-. 
July  27,  1854  --.. 


571 


Case  of. 


Date  of  Act. 

Statutes  at  Large. 

Volume. 

Page. 

July  29,  1854 

10 

10 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

12 

15 

16 

16 

17 

19 

20 

20 

20 

21 

22 

22 

22 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

9 

9 

9 

803 

August  1,  1854 

August  18,  1856 

August  23,  1856 

February  7,  1857 

February  10,  1857 

March  16,  1858 

Junel,  1858-.-. 

June  3,  1858.-.. 

February  9,  1859 

April  IS,"  1860    

808 
467 
483 
495 
496 
527 
586 
538 
559 
837 

February  22,  1869 

July  7,  1870    - 

440 
649 

July  7,  1870 

649 

May  25,  1872 

March  3,  1877 

June  18,  1878 

663 
542 
576 

December  19,  1878 

February  29,  1879 

February  18,  1880 

Augusts,  1882 

Januarys,  1883 

March  3, 1883    -.- 

589 
602 
535 

726 
752 
805 

July  14,  1832  . 

518 

July  14,  1832 

521 

July  14,  1832 

524 

July  14,  1832 

514 

February  9,  1833 

February  9,  1833 

February  27,  1833 

February  27,  1833 

March  2,  1833 

533 
533 
537 

587 
540 

March  2,  1833 

March  2,  1838 

March  2,  1833    -_ 

540 
542 
543 

March  2,  1833.  — 

March  2,  1833 

544 
549 

March  2,  1838 

551 

March  2,  1838 

551 

March  2,  1833 

551 

February  27, 1833 

March  2;  1883 

March  2,  1833    . 

537 
551 
540 

March  2,  1833 

542 

June  19,  1834 

565 

June  27,  1834 

570 

June  28,  1834 

574 

June  28,  1834 

576 

June  28,  1834 

576 

June  28,  1834 

576 

June  30,  1834 

587 

JuReSO,  1834 

June  80,  1834 

582 
589 

April  10  1840 

796 

July  4,  1840  - 

802 

August  11,  1842 

Augusts,  1846 

March  3,  1847 

856 
658 
704 

March  3,  1847 

694 

John  Frazier  and  John  G.  Clendenin 

Phineas  M.  Nightingale,  administrator 

Thomas  H.  Baird... 

The  legal  representatives  of  Thomas  Gordon 

Mary  Reeside 

Joseph  D.  Beers 

John  Hamilton 

Ruf  us  D  win  ell 

Heirs  of  Richard  D.  Rowland 

Henry  Hubbard 

Francis  Huttman 

Nott&Co.  

British  schooner  Flying  Scud 

British  steamer  Labuan 

James  F.  Joy , 

John  N.Hall 

Executors  of  Samuel  P.  Fearon 

Manhattan  Sayings  Institution... 

Commercial  Bank  of  Knoxyille 

Henry  Page.. 

Albert  Elsberg,  administrator 

Robert  Stod art  Wy Id 

German  National  Bank  of  Louisyille 

Captain  Dayenport 

Gertrude  Gates 

John  Peck 

John  Laurens 

Colonel  Thornton 

Son  of  Alexander  Brownlee 

Heirs  of  John  Wilson 

Riddle,  Becktle,  Headington  &  Co.. 

Captain  Thomas 

Lieutenant  Foster 

Dr.  Ledyard 

Colonel  John  Ely 

Captain  Triplett 

Lieutenant  Wagnon 

William  Price 

Philip  Slaughter. -. 

James  Barnett 

Archibald  Watts 

Captain  Gibbon 

Philip  Bush 

Eleanor  Courts 

Dr.  John  Berrien 

The  legal  representatiyes  of  Christian  Ish  ... 

Joseph  Falconer 

Samuel  Gibbs 

Benjamin  Bird 

Groye  Pomeroy 

The  representatiyes  of  General  Lord  Stirling 

John  Peck 

Captain  George  Hurlburt 

Alyarez  Fisk  1 

Matthew  Lyon 

John  Johnston 

Felix  St.  Vrain 

Lewis  C.  Sartori 

The  legal  representatiyes  of  Simon  Spaulding 


Every  fact  in  the  present  case  has  been  officially  found  by  the  Court  of 
Claims,  and  that  Court  in  delivering  judgment  (16  Court  of  Claims  Reports, 
73)  characterized  the  transaction  as  "  simply  a  case  of  a  bank  being  robbed, 
and  of  its  stolen  assets  being  put  into  the  hands  of  the  Cashier  of  the  Sub- 
Treasury  for  a  purpose  which  by  no  possible  view  could  in  law  be  held  to 


572 

effect  a  transfer  of  the  bank's  right  of  property  in  them  either  to  him  or  to 
the  United  States."  Demand  was  immediately  made  for  the  return  of  the 
money,  but  it  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  Government  for  fifteen  years, 
and  then  repayment  of  the  principal  was  made.  So  that  the  United  States 
was  able  to  hold  property,  which  its  Courts  has  declared  it  had  no  right  to 
hold,  until  it  earned  enough  at  six  per  cent  to  pay  for  it.  Surely  reparation 
should  be  made  in  such  a  case.  The  principle  of  repaying  interest  under 
such  circumstances  seems  to  be  established,  in  the  language  of  several  dis- 
tinguished committees  of  this  House,  as  follows: 

It  will  be  found,  upon  examination  of  the  precedents  where  Congress  has  passed  Acts 
for  the  relief  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  that  in  almost  every  case  where  the  Govern- 
ment has  withheld  a  sum  of  money  which  had  been  decided  by  competent  authority  to  be 
due,  or  where  the  amount  was  ascertained,  fixed,  and  definite.  Congress  has  directed  the 
payment  of  interest,  together  with  the  principal,  (Report  No.  17,  Forty-sixth  Congress, 
first  session ;  Report  No.  1568,  Forty-eighth  Congress,  first  session ;  Report  No.  661,  Forty- 
ninth  Congress,  first  session.) 

For  a  stronger  reason  should  this  be  so  in  the  present  case,  where  not  only 
was  the  amount  ascertained,  fixed,  and  definite,  but  where,  also,  the  cred- 
itor relation  was  not  voluntary,  but  was  forced  upon  the  claimants  by  the 
United  States,  who  became,  therefore,  tort  debtors. 

There  is  abundant  proof  to  show  that  at  the  time  the  property  of  the  bank 
was  transferrred  to  the  Sub-Treasury  of  the  United  States  the  bank  was 
earning  from  eight  to  ten  per  cent  upon  its  assets,  being  in  a  very  prosper- 
ous condition.  The  bill  calls  for  the  payment  of  five  per  cent  interest,  but 
the  Senate  committee  have  found  that  four  and  a  half  per  cent  was  about 
the  average  rate  of  interest  paid  by  the  Government  between  1867  and  1881, 
and  accordingly  your  committee,  recognizing  the  fact  that  the  Government 
ought  not  to  pay  a  higher  rate  of  interest  on  this  claim  than  they  were  in 
the  habit  of  paying  to  other  creditors,  recommend  that  the  bill  be  amended 
by  striking  out  in  lines  1  and  2,  of  Section  2,  the  words  "two  hundred  and 
seventy-five  thousand  dollars,"  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  the  words  "  two 
hundred  and  forty-nine  thousand  thirty-nine  dollars  and  ninety-five  cents," 
and  thus  amended,  recommend  its  passage. 


EXHIBITS 


FEE  CLAIM,  ETC, 


EXHIBIT  No.  1. 

[Copy.] 

State  of  California,  office  of  Surveyor-General. 
[Official.] 

Subject  to  the  approval  and  ratification  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State 
of  California,  I  hereby  appoint  Captain  John  Mullan  to  represent  this  State 
and  collect  therefor  such  amounts  of  money  as  have  been  paid  by  said 
State  to  the  Registers  and  Receivers  of  the  several  U.  S.  Land  Offices,  as 
fees  for  the  selections  of  lands,  as  provided  by  law,  and  which  selections, 
for  cause  satisfactorily  shown,  were  not  approved,  confirmed,  or  certified  to 
said  State,  but  subsequently  rejected  and  canceled,  and  to  the  restitution 
of  which  fees  the  State  is  entitled. 

No  expense  connected  with  the  collection  of  said  amounts  to  be  consid- 
ered a  claim  against  the  State,  and  Capt.  Mullan  to  receive  as  compensa- 
tion in  full  for  said  collection,  the  sum  of  twenty  per  cent  (20  per  cent)  of 
the  amount  collected  and  receipted  for  by  the  State. 

Witness  my  hand  and  seal  this  twenty-fourth  day  of  October,  1883. 

[Signed:]  H.  L  WILLEY,  Surveyor-General. 


[Official.] 

Office  of  Surveyor-General  and  ex  officio  State  Land  Register  ) 
OF  THE  State  of  California,  December  1,  1885.      J 

Captain  John  Mullan,  Washington,  D.  C: 

Sir:  I  hereby  appoint  you  Special  Agent  on  the  part  of  this  office,  and 
of  the  State  of  California  (subject  to  the  action  of  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  California),  to  represent  the  interests  of  this  office,  and  that  of 
the  State  of  California,  before  Congress,  and  before  the  proper  Bureaus 
and  Departments  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  at  Washington 
City,  D.  C,  in  the  matter  of  all  lands  inuring  to  the  State  of  California, 
under  the  Acts  of  Congress  approved  September  28,  1850,  and  July  23, 
1866,  in  regard  to  all  swamp  or  overflowed  lands,  which  have  been  hereto- 
fore sold  or  otherwise  disposed  of  by  the  United  States,  to  the  loss  or 
detriment  of  this  State. 

With  a  view  of  securing  for  this  State  a  proper  indemnity,  in  either  lands 
or  money,  for  such  swamp  or  overflowed  lands  as  have  been  heretofore  so 
sold,  or  otherwise  disposed  of  by  the  United  States. 

H.  I.  WILLEY,  Surveyor-General. 


576 
EXHIBIT  No.  2. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.     H.  R.  No.  3222. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.     January  11,  1886 — Read  twice,  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Mr.  Henley  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

To  extend  certain  provisions  of  an  Act  approved  March  second^  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  fifty-five,  entitled  '^ An  Act  for  the  relief  of  purchasers  and  locators 
of  swamp  and  oveifiowed  lands^ 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  all  entries,  locations, 
selections,  and  disposals  of  the  swamp  lands,  or  of  lands  alleged  to  be 
swamp,  under  any  law  of  the  United  States  made  since  the  third  day  of 
March,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-seven,  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  con- 
firmed, and  patents  shall  issue  to  such  purchasers,  locators,  or  grantees 
thereof;  provided,  that  if  any  State  shall  not,  within  one  year  from  the  pas- 
sage of  this  Act,  through  its  constituted  authorities,  return  to  the  General 
Land  Office  of  the  United  States  a  list  of  all  the  lands  sold  by  the  State  as 
aforesaid,  together  with  the  dates  of  such  sale  and  the  names  of  the  pur- 
chasers, and  also  of  all  lands  granted  or  conveyed  by  her  as  aforesaid,  the 
patents  shall  be  issued  immediately  thereafter  as  above  provided. 

Sec.  2.  That  the  second  section  of  the  Act  of  March  second,  eighteen 
hundred  and  fifty-five,  entitled  "An  Act  for  the  relief  of  purchasers  and 
locators  of  swamp  and  overflowed  lands,"  be  and  is  hereby  continued  in 
force  and  extended  to  all  States,  for  all  lands  the  entry,  selection,  or  loca- 
tion of  which  is  confirmed  by  the  preceding  section;  provided,  that  none  of 
the  provisions  of  the  first  section  of  this  Act  shall  apply  to  entries,  locations, 
or  selections,  of  lands  in  the  States  of  Oregon  and  Minnesota  prior  to  March 
twelfth,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty;  neither  shall  said  States  be  allowed 
indemnity  for  swamp  lands  sold  or  located  prior  to  that  date;  and  provided 
further,  that  cash  indemnity  only  shall  be  allowed  for  all  locations,  entries, 
selections,  and  disposals  of  swamp  lands;  and  the  amount  of  cash  to  which 
any  State  shall  be  entitled  shall  be  the  price  at  which  the  land  was  held 
at  the  date  of  location,  entry,  selection,  or  disposal,  by  the  General  Gov- 
ernment. 


EXHIBIT  No.  3. 

[PSteport  No.  1089.] 

In  the  House  of  Representatives.  January  26, 1886 — Read  twice,  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

March  17,  1886 — Reported  with  amendments,  committed  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  ordered  to  be 
printed. 

Omit  the  parts  struck  through  and  insert  the  parts  printed  in  italics. 


577 

Mr.  Caswell  introduced  the  following  bill: 

A  BILL 

For  the  relief  of  purchasers  and  other  grantees  of  the  United  States  of  certain 
swamp  and  overflowed  lands,  and  to  reimburse  and  indemnify  certain 
States. 

Whereas,  The  United  States  has,  by  various  Acts  of  Congress,  granted 
to  several  of  the  States  certain  of  the  swamp  and  overflowed  lands  situate 
within  their  respective  limits;  and  whereas,  some  of  said  swamp  and  over 
flowed  lands  were  thereafter  erroneously  sold  and  otherwise  disposed  of  by 
the  United  States,  in  derogation  of  the  rights  of  the  States  entitled  thereto, 
and  contrary  to  and  in  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  grants  aforesaid; 
and  whereas,  no  adequate  indemnity  to  said  States  or  relief  to  the  purchasers 
of  said  lands  has  been  hitherto  provided;  therefore. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  .America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  it  shall  be  the  daty  of  the 
proper  officers  of  the  Treasury  and  Interior  Departments  to  adjust  and  set- 
tle the  claims  of  any  State  against  the  United  States  for  all  lands  which 
have  been  or  may  hereafter  be  sold  or  otherwise  disposed  of  by  the  United 
States  that  were  included  in  any  grant  of  swamp  or  overflowed  lands  to 
such  State. 

Sec.  2.  That  for  all  of  said  lands  in  any  State  which  were  sold  for  cash 
the  said  State  shall  have  the  credit  for  the  full  amount  of  the  purchase 
money  received  by  the  United  States,  as  of  the  last  day  of  the  year  in 
which  it  was  received,  and  the  same  shall  be  applied  to  the  payment  of 
the  indebtedness,  if  any,  of  such  State  to  the  United  States;  and  the  bal- 
ance, less  such  sum  or  sums  as  may  have  heretofore  been  paid  or  credited 
as  aforesaid,  shall  be  paid  over  to  the  Governor  or  other  duly  authorized 
agent  of  said  State;  an(f  for  all  of  said  lands  in  any  State  located  with 
warrants  or  scrip,  or  which  were  otherwise  disposed  of  by  the  United  States, 
and  for  which  indemnity  has  not  heretofore  been  granted  such  State,  shall 
have  indemnity  in  cash,  the  amount  thereof  to  be  limited  to  the  price  at 
which  the  lands  were  held  at  the  date  of  their  disposal  by  the  United 
States,  the  said  indemnity  to  be  credited  and  paid  as  herein  provided  in 
the  cases  where  lands  were  sold  for  cash ;  provided,  that  the  acceptance  by 
any  State  or  its  legal  representative  of  indemnity,  for  any  of  the  lands  sold 
or  otherwise  disposed  of  by  the  United  States,  shall  be  a  relinquishment 
and  waiver  of  all  its  right,  title,  and  interest  in  and  to  such  lands,  and  an 
acknowledgment  and  confirmation  of  the  title  thereto  in  the  grantees  of 
the  United  States. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  provisions  of  this  Act  shall  embrace  the  swamp  and  over- 
sowed lands  on  the  odd  sections  within  the  six-mile  limits  of  the  line  of  rail- 
road between  Chicago  and  Mobile  constructed  under  the  Act  of  Coxigress 
approved  September  twentieth,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty. 

87  •" 


57; 


EXHIBIT  No.  4. 

Forty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.     House  of  Representatives.     Report  No.  lO*^!*. 

SWAMP  AND  OVERFLOWED  LANDS. 

March  17,  1886 — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on 
the  state  of  the  Union  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Van  Eaton,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Pubhc  Lands,  submitted  the 
following 

REPORT. 
[To  accompany  bill  H.  R.  4792.] 

The  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  to  whom  was  referred  the  bill  (H. 
R.  4792),  for  the  relief  of  purchasers  and  oth^r  grantees  of  the  United 
States  of  certain  swamp  and  overflowed  lands,  and  to  reimburse  and  indem- 
nify certain  States,  have  had  the  same  under  consideration  and  report: 

There  have  been  three  grants  of  swamp  and  overflowed  lands  by  the 
United  States  to  States  in  which  such  lands  were  situate,  namely,  to 
Louisiana  in  1849,  to  all  public  land  States  in  1850,  and  to  Minnesota  and 
Oregon  in  1860.  For  all  practical  purposes  these  Acts  were  alike  in  their 
provisions  and  granted  to  these  States  all  the  unsold  lands  of  that  charac- 
ter within  their  respective  limits.  They  were  grants  in  prxsenti,  without 
condition  of  any  kind,  and  conveyed,  j^ropno  rigore,  to  the  respective  States 
all  lands  coming  Avithin  the  descriptive  terms  used  in  the  statutes.  Although 
the  language  of  these  statutes  is  so  plain  and  unambiguous  as  apparently 
not  to  require  judicial  interpretation  or  construction,  yet,  upon  one  pretext 
or  another,  they  have  been  before  various  Courts,  both  State  and  National, 
for  consideration,  and  the  right  and  the  title  of  the  States  to  these  lands 
repeatedly  and  uniformly  confirmed.  The  scope  of  the  decisions  rendered 
will  sufficiently  appear  in  the  following  brief  quotations  from  the  opinions 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  • 

In  Eailroad  Company  vs.  Smith  (9  Wallace,  95),  that  Court  says: 

The  Act  of  September  28,  1850,  was  a  present  grant  by  Congress  of  certain  lands  to  the 
'■States  within  which  they  lie,  but  by  a  description  which  requires  something  more  than  a 
mere  reference  to  their  townships,  ranges,  and  sections  to  identify  them  as  coming 
within  it.    *    *    * 

By  the  second  section  of  the  Act  of  1850  it  was  made  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior to  ascertain  this  fact,  namely,  what  tracts  were  so  swampy",  overflowed,  and'wet  as  that 
the  major  parts  thereof  were  unfit  for  cultivation,  and  furnish  the  State  with  the  evidence 
of  it.  Must  the  State  lose  the  lands,  though  clearly  swamp  land,  because  that  officer  has 
neglected  to  do  this?  The  right  of  the  State  did  not  depend  on  his  action,  Init  on  the  Act 
of  Congress,  and  though  the  State  might  be  embarrassed  in  the  assertion  of  this  right  by 
the  delay  or  failure  of  the  Secretary  to  ascertain  and  make  out  lists  of  these  lands,  the 
right  of  the  State  to  them  could  not  be  defeated  by  that  delay. 

And  in  the  latter  case  of  French  vs.  Fyan  et  al.  (3  Otto,  169),  the  same 
Court  says: 

This  Court  has  decided  more  than  once  that  the  swamp  land  Act  was  a  grant  in  prxsenti, 
by  which  the  title  to  those  lands  passed  at  once  to  the  State  in  which  they  lay,  except  as 
to  States  admitted  to  the  Union  after  its  passage. 

It  was  not  necessary  that  the  States  should  submit  any  selections,  or 
prefer  any  requests,  or  make  any  demands.  "  The  title  to  those  lands 
passed  at  once,"  and  it  was  made  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
to  ascertain  the  particular  tracts  of  land  which  were  included,  described, 
and  conveyed  in  the  grant,  and  certify  them  to  the  States.  Sales,  loca- 
tions, and  entries  of  these  lands  have  been  made  and  patents  issued,  not- 


579 

withstanding  the  fact  that  it  was  not  competent  for  the  Government  to 
give  a  valid  title  to  the  said  lands  so  embraced  in  these  grants  to  any  other 
than  the  grantees  named  in  the  Acts  of  Congress.  These  facts  coming  to 
the  attention  of  Congress,  a  remedial  statute  was  passed  in  1855,  and 
another  in  1857,  providing  indemnity  to  the  States  and  confirming  the  title 
of  the  innocent  purchasers  and  locators  of  the  lands ;  but  through  oversight 
or  purchase,  because  it  was  supposed  the  irregular  practices  which  made 
these  statutes  necessary  would  not  be  continued,  they  were  not  made  pros- 
pective and  continuing  in  their  application. 

Notwithstanding  the  laws  and  the  decisions  of  Courts  and  the  rulings  of 
the  department  itself,  the  practice  has  continued  of  not  considering  any 
lands  as  coming  within  the  purview  of  the  swamp  grants  until  the  States 
should  select  and  prove  them  to  be  such,  and  sales  and  other  disposals  of 
these  lands  have  continued  to  the  present  time.  Hence  the  necessity  for 
further  remedial  legislation,  which  should  be,  if  possible,  coextensive  with 
the  injuries  inflicted. 

The  result  of  the  continued  disposal  of  these  lands,  to  which  reference 
has  been  made,  has  been  and  is  a  double  injustice  to  the  States,  and  man- 
ifests itself,  (1)  in  the  unjust  and  illegal  diminution  of  a  fund  upon  which 
they  had  a  right  to  rely,  and  (2)  in  the  initiating  of  a  series  of  worthless 
and  void  titles  and  the  litigations  and  losses  to  which  they  give  rise, 
evidenced  in  part  by  the  reports  of  over  seventy  cases  decided  in  the  Courts 
of  last  resort  in  the  several  States,  and  cited  in  the  report  of  the  commis- 
sion on  the  codification  of  the  land  laws  of  the  United  States,  vol.  1,  pages 
57  and  58. 

These  conditions,  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  give  rise  to  just  claims 
against  the  United  States,  both  on  the  part  of  States  and  the  individuals 
who  find  themselves  without  title  to  lands  for  which  they  have  paid  full  con- 
sideration, and  demand  attentive  consideration  and  speedy  action  by  Con- 
gress. 

It  is  for  the  adjustment  of  these  claims,  and  these  only,  that  the  bill 
herewith  reported  provides.  It  does  not  make  any  grant  or  renew  or  enlarge 
or  modif}^  any  previous  grant.  It  does  not  reverse,  set  aside,  or  modify  any 
decisions  of  the  Courts.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  in  entire  consonance  with 
these  and  simply  and  only  provides  for  carrying  them  into  effect  in  a  direct 
and  equitable  manner. 

Briefly  restated  the  case  is  as  follows: 

There  are  certain  moneys  in  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  which  in 
law  and  in  fact  belong  to  certain  States,  because  received  by  the  United 
States  for  the  property  of  these  States  wTongfully  and  illegally  sold  by  it, 
and  the  proceeds  thereof  converted  to  its  use.  This  bill  provides  that  these 
moneys  shall  be  returned  to  the  rightful  owners.  To  meet  the  further  fact 
that  the  United  States  has  assumed  to  dispose  of  other  lands  not  its  own 
otherwise  than  for  cash,  this  bill,  when  amended  as  proposed  by  the  com- 
mittee, provides  that  the  United  States  shall  make  compensation  therefor 
in  cash  at  the  rate  at  which  the  lands  were  held  when  disposed  of,  with  the 
proviso  that  the  acceptance  of  indemnity  shall  be  a  relinquishment  of  the 
title  and  rights  derived  through  the  grant  and  a  confirmation  of  the  title 
and  right  of  parties  holding  under  the  subsequent  irregular  and  unauthor- 
ized conveyances  from  the  United  States. 

For  the  purpose  of  making  the  bill  conform  to  what  they  believe  to  be 
•the  dominant  public  sentiment  and  to  embrace  all  the  cases  calling  for  con-* 
gressional  intervention,  your  committee  recommend  the  following  amend- 
ments, namely: 

In  section  two  strike  out  all  after  the  word  "  State  "  in  the  twelfth  line 


580 

down  to  and  including  the  word  "may"  in  the  twenty-first  line,  and  insert 
in  lieu  thereof  the  word  "shall."  Also  insert  the  words  "or  its  legal  rep- 
resentatives," after  the  word  "  State  "  in  the  twenty-seventh  line,  and  strike 
out  in  same  line  the  words  "  whether  in  cash  or  in  land."  Also  add  a  new 
section,  as  follows: 

"  Sec.  3.  The  provisions  of  this  bill  shall  embrace  the  swamp  and  over- 
flowed lands  on  the  odd  sections  within  the  six-mile  limits  of  the  line  of 
railroad  between  Chicago  and  Mobile,  constructed  under  the  Act  of  Con- 
gress approved  September  20,  1850." 

The  recommendation  of  the  committee  to  pay  cash  indemnity  only  is 
made  from  the  fact  that  the  public  lands  fit  for  agricultural  purposes  should 
be  set  apart  for  the  purpose  of  settlement  and  homestead,  and  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  growing  sentiment  of  the  people  in  all  the  States.  The  day 
for  the  issue  of  scrip  which  can  be  floated  by  speculators  on  the  choicest 
portion  of  public  lands  has  passed. 

With  reference  to  the  proposed  section  three,  which  the  committee  have 
added,  it  will  suffice  to  say  it  was  found,  on  examination  of  the  law  and 
the  facts,  that  the  even-numbered  sections  were  granted  to  aid  in  the  con- 
struction of  the  railroad  referred  to,  and  that  the  swamp  lands  on  the  odd 
sections  within  the  six-mile  limits  of  the  road  that  remained  unsold  on  the 
twenty-eighth  day  of  September,  1850,  have  been  subsequently  sold  by  the 
United  States,  and  the  proceeds  paid  into  its  Treasury — most  of  it  thirty 
years  ago.  Where  these  odd  sections  were  vacant  on  the  third  of  March, 
1857,  the  United  States  has  certified  them  to  the  State  under  the  swamp 
land  grant,  but  where  the  same  have  been  sold  the.  Government  has 
declined  to  pay  indemnity,  on  the  ground  that  they  were  withdrawn  from 
sale  by  letter  of  the  President  eight  days  before  the  swamp  land  grant  was 
passed. 

Your  committee  do  not  see  that  this  letter  of  withdrawal  took  it  out  of 
the  power  of  Congress  to  grant  these  lands  to  the  States  eight  days  after  it 
was  written.  By  the  later  Act  all  the  swamp  and  overflowed  lands  remain- 
ing unsold  at  the  date  of  its  passage  were  granted  to  the  States  within 
which  they  were  situate  without  any  reservatidn  whatever.  If,  therefore, 
the  withdrawal  of  these  lands  was  not  a  sale  of  them  they  "remained 
unsold  "  and  passed  by  the  grant.  But  that  said  withdrawal  was  not  a 
sale  or  so  considered  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  in  due.  time  the  lands 
were  restored  to  market,  sold,  and  the  money  received  paid  into  the  Treas- 
ury of  the  United  States. 

The  same  conditions  surround  these  lands  that  surround  all  other 
swamp  lands,  wherever  situated.  There  is  the  same  necessity  for  perfect- 
ing title  in  those  persons  to  whom  the  United  States  has  wrongfully  con- 
veyed these  lands,  and  the  same  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  Government 
to  pay  indemnity  to  the  State.  This  section  does  not  in  any  way  enlarge 
the  grant  as  originally  made.  It  simply  recognizes  what  the  Courts  have 
repeatedly  decided. 

Your  committee  have  had  various  bills  before  them  and  find  they  are 
similar  to  bills  which  have  been  before  every  Congress  since  1865.  Special 
Acts  have  since  that  date  been  passed  for  several  of  the  States  or  their 
grantees,  but  no  general  bill  of  a  remedial  nature  has  yet  become  a  law. 

In  conclusion  your  committee  would  state  that  this  bill,  with  the  proposed 
amendments,  makes  provision  for  the  final  adjustment  of  the  vexed  ques- 
tions arising  out  of  the  swamp  land  grant  as  to  all  the  States  interested,, 
and  is  in  harmony  with  the  views  of  all  State  and  United  States  Courts, 
as  expressed  in  numerous  decisions.  They,  therefore,  report  the  bill  back 
with  amendments  and  recommend  its  passage. 


ri:s 


^x^'m 


m^ 


^&W^ 


m 


>>-:>.:> 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  tine 
NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


SENT  ON  ILL 


MAR  3  1  1999 


U.  C.  BERKELEY 


^     >5> 


2,000(11/95) 


3?52»>  "'^^^^^''  ^"■:^M- 


^>-  L^^m^ 


>I^^^5 


^^  yn 


:>3^ 


^^^3^5 

E^? 

uS 

ss 

M126753 


H  J  8341 

CaKs 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


►'  ^>^^ ':^L_:3l?L>  ■        l^'" 


9^sy^ 


^^^ 


^^^^^^^^^ 

'Si 

^^^^^ 

> 

^^ 

irJ^^ 

?^ 

"^  - 

2. 

s^ 


^   x::>  .„:2>  3^ 


>S>iS 


m39>3wm 


MMMMMMMMMMMMMj^ 


LIB 


